Re-baselining the core message or just getting to the point?

I was quite amused last week to see the press coverage surrounding the Local Government Associations list of banned words. As a former head of communications for Mencap – a charity that aims to ensure people with all levels of ability are given an equal chance in life – the list appeals to my egalitarian sensibilities.

As the Chairman of the Local Government Association, Cllr Margaret Eaton, put it: “The public sector must not hide behind impenetrable jargon and phrases. Why do we have to have ‘coterminous, stakeholder engagement’ when we could just ‘talk to people’ instead?”

But as a consultant working the public sector I know it can be all too easy to slip into jargon, partly because it’s familiar to the people you’re working with, and partly because it’s a useful short-cut to say something that would otherwise take many more words.

On the whole, the proposed list seems sensible, particularly considering that it’s about how public sector organisations communicate with the public, rather than with themselves. But I have to disagree with some of the items on the list. For example, the LGA’s suggested substitution for the word ‘social exclusion’ is poverty – which for me is just one of the potential ingredients of social exclusion – others being disability and low education.  I’m also not sure that many of our clients would be happy to have their ‘visions’ described as ‘dreams’, as the LGA suggests.

Changing the way we communicate is no easy task. I realised I was taking my insider jargon a little too far when my diary became filled with appointments labelled ‘KIT’ – a piece of central government jargon I’ve picked up which stands for ‘Keep In Touch’, but simply means a meeting.

So what do you think of the LGA’s list? Should we ‘cautiously welcome’ this piece of ‘citizen empowerment’?