For several years now, and in the face of a variety of criticisms, the UK government has perfected a pattern one might reasonably describe as a "governmental language shuffle" (GL shuffle).  It allows them to completely sidestep the point of the criticism whilst at the same time making the complainant seem like a complete bastard for having raised the matter in the first place.

What's particularly remarkable is that there is little sign that any members of the other political parties have figured out how to respond to the GL Shuffle.  As you read this description you might like to consider what would constitute an appropriate response to keep the discussion on-topic.

The Shuffle

In a typical exchange the complainant (Politician A) expresses a concern about some aspect of government policy.  For example:

"If GCSE exam grades are improving it's because the standards are being reduced."
 
"The government is sending British troops into battle with inadequate equipment."

Governmental responses (Politician B) tend to be along the lines of:

"It is a great shame that the honourable member has chosen to criticise students and to question their abilities."
 
"Our troops are doing a heroic job under very difficult circumstances and I quite frankly don't understand why the honourable member has chosen to undermine their efforts with this kind of criticism."

(The term "honourable member" is a general label for elected members of parliament in the UK, collectively known as "The House of Commons".)

And the Answer Is ...?

Viewed at leisure it is quite clear that Politician A is criticising the exam system, not the students who are taking those exams; and government penny-pinching, not the troops who are being put at risk because of the penny-pinching.
But these exchanges usually take the form of confrontational attempts at point-scoring rather than an atmosphere of openness and honesty.  The problem lies in the fact that it is very difficult to answer Politician B's responses head on without taking the discussion further off course.

Another difficulty is that poiliticians, whilst in the Parliamentary chamber at least, talk to each other via the referee, sorry, via "Mr Speaker", in the manner of a debate rather than in discussion mode.  This means that the level of discussion between members usually consists of no more than two or three statements on each side on any topic.  (In part this is because most Parliamentary business is conducted in private "committee meetings" rather than in the Chamber of the House of Commons.)

One possible altenative open to Politician A might be to simply brush the answer off and repeat the original point, thus:

"Mr Speaker, perhaps my honourable colleague didn't hear me clearly.  I said: This government is sending British troops into battle with inadequate equipment."

Would this answer help to convince you that Politician A is making a valid point; or would you feel that Politician B's reply was adequate to deflect the criticism?

If you think you've got a viable response and would like to send it in - with your name or anonymously - we'll post the best answer(s) for further discussion.
Send your idea, preferably an actual script, to:

bradburyac@hotmail.com