The Local Government Association (LGA) would like to see some of the above words (‘blue-sky’) etc banned from council use, having sent out a list of 200 words and phrases to councils around the country that they would really rather they didn’t use.

For the most part this appears to be because they are in incomprehensible managese (like legalese, only more for managers) such as “predictors of beaconicity”, although in some cases it’s because while they are relatively comprehensible, there are simpler words which would work better, only wouldn’t generally get used because they don’t sound ‘cool’ enough.

For example, tranche is to be discouraged. It means ’slice’. The LGA quite reasonably make the point that if you mean slice, why not say so?

Some words which have become fairly standard ‘in-house’ are criticised — “procure”, “benchmarking”, “can do culture” and the like are suggested should be dropped, although the LGA is less than coherent about what should be used instead.

This is a great idea, and I’m all for our councils (and our MPs, MEPs*, and our justice system) actually learning to speak in what I would term as English. However, there are two major problems with this.

* whether or not I’m standing.

The first one would appear to be that councils don’t listen to the LGA. What makes me say this? Well, it sounded vaguely familiar for a start and the BBC article where I first noticed this report has some links at the side, suggesting that the LGA have attempted to ban jargon before.

For example, if we look at the Guardian from June last year, we see:

The LGA has listed 100 words or phrases that public bodies should avoid if they want to communicate effectively with people.

The list, which has been sent to councils across the country, includes such abominations as “value-added”, “improvement levers”, “predictors of beaconicity”…The Guardian: Striking A Blow For The Jargon-Haters, June 2008

Chortle. There’s that “predictors of beaconicity” again. And if we look back a little further, we’ll find the same thing in February 2008 (referring to the first list of December 2007).

The Local Government Association’s list of 100 words that should not be used in communication with the general public makes for alarming reading.

It ranges from the slightly muddled such as “revenue stream” [money] and “best practice” [right way to do things] to the downright flabbergasting “predictors of beaconicity”

BBC News: Why do councils love jargon?, February 2008

Hmm. It would appear then that one of three things is happening. The first possibility is that the LGA is toothless and irrelevant as the fact that they have felt the need to include “predictors of beaconicity” on each list to date would seem to indicate that councils are ignoring what the LGA have to say and continuing to spout the seem meaningless garbage that they have done for some time.

Or secondly, it could be that Councils aren’t actually using the term “predictors of beaconicity”, only it’s too good a jargon term for the LGA to drop from their list. Which would seem to imply that the LGA’s list isn’t based on actually helping the man on the street, it’s about trying to grab headlines.

Hmm. How could one possibly research such a thing?

It would appear from my rather cursory research that Councils haven’t been the ones using the term “Predictors of beaconicity”. Nope, this was Central Government. On Hazel Blears’ watch, the Communities and Local Government Department produced a report called — guess what? — Predictors of Beaconicity in November 2007. Not, you’d note, Local Authorities at all.

It would appear from my refined search that a grand total of no councils whatsoever have used the phrase ‘predictors of beaconicity’ except — and this is important — when referencing the LGA list of words that they shouldn’t use.

It would therefore appear that the LGA have not only banned councils from using a phrase which none of them were using in the first place, but it has then been directly responsible for the only references to the phrase which exist on council sites…

How is this actually helping local government? Or, for that matter, the proverbial ‘man in the street’? Is the LGA incapable of doing any research? Or is it just that it’s less effort to continue to regurgitate out-dated and inaccurate information?

It does surprise me somewhat — although it probably shouldn’t — that the media seem prepared to accept this LGA release verbatim, without questioning any of it. This is reflected in the way in which this story is covered in various places, which seems to work from the assumption that councils are using these terms, without any actual evidence provided to support it. I’m sure some of the terms are being used, but the one I looked at wasn’t and the LGA are surely doing Local Government in the UK a disservice by implying that they do…

If you’re in the mood for a bit of a laugh at ‘those mandarins in city hall’, you can even take part in the BBC Midweek Quiz: Council Jargon. Again, note the assumption that because the LGA say it’s a banned word, councils must currently be using it. Perhaps the LGA could put their banned word list to more effective use next year by naming and shaming those councils it believes are responsible for most of this jargon, with more cited examples. That way we wouldn’t just have to take their word for it.

Oh, and that BBC Quiz itself isn’t perfect. I got one of the answers wrong, which left me with 5 out of 6 answers correct. I wasn’t therefore too surprised to find that I had ended up in the second category “4 – 6: Make some sense”. However I did feel that the BBC were perhaps making it a little difficult to get the top score of “plain speaking”, with 7 correct answers needed from only 6 questions.

Although it maybe suggests that the BBC’s fact-checking is no better than the LGA’s.

Getting back to my original rant, what’s the third possibility? That the LGA list is made up and irrelevant to what councils actually use and that councils are ignoring it anyway. And after all, why should councils be expected to listen to the LGA when they don’t follow their own advice?

the LGA have some way to go in leading by example, judging by their own website. I searched “place shaping” and got 302 hits. Stakeholder got 347. Third sector 412. Interface 126. Synergies a more modest 51 but as the LGA themselves ask: “Why use at all?”Conservative Home | Local Government

And that brings me rather neatly to the second problem with the LGA list. At the bottom of the press release it says “200 words and their alternatives”. Now I don’t know about you, but I take alternatives to mean “what should be used instead”. Yes?

This would seem to be backed up by them saying things like…

• advocate — support
• autonomous — independent

LGA

But then their suggestions for alternatives get a little weirder…

• CAAs — why use at all?
• Cautiously welcome — devil in the detail
• holistic — taken in the round
• social exclusion — poverty

There’s a mix of problems here. Firstly ‘why use at all’ isn’t an alternative to CAAs. It is instead an acronym for the Civil Aviation Authority. Or possibly a Comprehensive Area Assessment. If you are referring to either one of these, surely you’ve got to call them something, and saying that “we’re carrying out a why use at all? of your local area to determine how best to spend public funds” doesn’t really make that much sense.

Secondly, ‘cautiously welcome’ and ‘devil in the detail’ are not direct alternatives either. What is meant is that when you say ‘cautiously welcome’, you presumably ought to expand on what you’re welcoming, and what you’re being cautious about, otherwise it doesn’t really mean anything other than you’re sitting on the fence whilst trying to appear positive. Unfortunately, as they’ve just listed these four words, this may not be clear.

And why on earth would anyone think ‘taken in the round’ is a clearer explanation for ‘holistic’? Surely an ‘overall’ view is much plainer English?

And sadly, the Local Government Association, whom I really would have thought ought to have known better, have assumed that social exclusion = poverty. Simple as. Except it isn’t that simple. People may be socially excluded for a number of factors. Sure, poverty is a common factor in social exclusion, but sexuality, religion, class, disability, education, geographic location, and age are all frequently reasons people may be socially excluded. Poverty is therefore not a suitable alternative to the phrase ’social exclusion’.

I really would have expected the Local Government Association to have known better. Then again, I would have expected their list of discouraged words to have had some greater relevance to the words which councils were actually using. I would, at the very least, have expected them to follow their own advice. It’s almost enough to make you wonder if @localgovernment isn’t a spoof…