When a politician says that they want to have an “honest conversation” or discussion, there’s two things to take note of. One is that announcing your intention to have a conversation, honest or otherwise, is a way of avoiding having the conversation here and now. It is an earnest sounding manana. The other is that “honest”, in all such circumstances, protests too much. It seeks to imply that the conversations that have already been had by, y’know, those other people have been dishonest, and that you’re the straight dealer who’s going to tell it like it is. But it simultaneously betrays an anxiety. The same applies to honesty as applies to being powerful or being a lady: if you have to say you are, you aren’t. See also, “I’m not complaining, but” and “with all due respect”.

“It’s fine to have free movement as long as not too many people move” isn’t a policy

“It’s fine to have free movement as long as not too many people move” isn’t a policy

So it is with the government being pressed on the question of Europe. So it is with the government being pressed on quite a lot of things. They’re not ruling anything out, nothing’s off the table, and they’re prepared to do some radical stuff, you betcha… some time. After an honest conversation. Saying: “This is what we believe and this is what we’re going to campaign for” offers hostages to fortune. So looking forward to an “honest conversation” is the holding line. It’s the one that Angela Rayner........

© The Spectator