Unsackability
« previous post | next post »
From "Theresa May's interview with Andrew Marr – Summary", The Guardian 10/1/2017:
May refused to deny that Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, has become “unsackable”. Johnson yesterday used an interview with the Sun to set out four personal red lines for Brexit, all of which go beyond the cabinet position set out in May’s Florence speech and at least one of which may prove to be impossible. Asked if he was now unsackable, May laughed at the question and just said he was “absolutely behind” the plan for Brexit she set out in Florence. She did not use the line she used in July, when she was in a stronger position and told LBC: “There’s no such thing as an unsackable minister.”
Mark Dowson wrote:
I’m still struggling with this. I think that, if I deny x, I am stating that (in my opinion) x is false. Then If I refuse to deny x, I am stating that I will not provide my opinion on whether x is false (so could believe it to be either false or true). So the headline doesn’t seem to provide any information about May’s view of Johnson’s sackability.
Perhaps with the help of greater distance, the interpretation seems clear to me.
Back in July, when May was asked whether Johnson had become unsackable, she denied it, by implication from the general proposition that "There's no such thing as an unsackable minister".
In the current interview, she was given another opportunity to deny that he has become unsackable, i.e. to assert that he is indeed sackable, presumably as an implicit threat to punish him for his recent statements. This time, she evaded the question by claiming that Johnson is "absolutely behind" her plan, and thus not actually insubordinate in a way that would motivate sacking.
In both cases, the real question is how much control she has over his lack of discipline. In July, she asserted by implication that she could fire him if she chose to. Now she simply claimed that his apparent lack of discipline doesn't actually exist, so that the question of sacking him for it doesn't arise. The writer characterizes this, plausibly, as the result of her having been in a "stronger position" back in July.
So it's true that "the headline doesn’t seem to provide any information about May’s view of Johnson’s sackability", but it does provide some information about her current relationship with the press over Johnson's behavior. At all times, she avoided potentially provocative sound bites, in the way that politicians often do. Rather than saying "I could sack Boris Johnson", she said that "There's no such thing as an unsackable minister", and then later that Johnson is "absolutely behind" her plan.
J.W. Brewer said,
October 1, 2017 @ 10:31 am
The "general proposition" may be no more than a particular application of a broader proverb which has been attributed (falsely) to various distinguished French statesmen as explored here: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/11/21/graveyards-full/.
Ian Preston said,
October 1, 2017 @ 11:30 am
What she said about Johnson being "absolutely behind" the Florence speech and the line she has taken was actually an answer to Marr's previous question which was as to how she could tolerate someone behaving like he had been in her cabinet. (About 1:11 in this video). The question about sackability came after this and the answer was more evasive. (This is at about 1:38):
MikeA said,
October 1, 2017 @ 12:10 pm
You just have to realize that "absolutely behind" should be read as "late getting there". If natural languages did not provide such an abundant supply of useful ambiguity, politicians (among others) would invent a language that did.
David L said,
October 1, 2017 @ 4:42 pm
Theresa May: Look, let's be very clear about what we have here in this, er, government.
That's a beautifully placed 'er.'
Arthur Baker said,
October 1, 2017 @ 5:51 pm
"If natural languages did not provide such an abundant supply of useful ambiguity, politicians (among others) would invent a language that did."
Beautiful. MikeA, that's the comment of the year, and I hope you don't mind if I use it widely. Its applicability to politicians in my country (Australia) is pretty much universal.
Pete said,
October 2, 2017 @ 7:50 am
I read that article this morning and understood it immediately – the "poor monkey brain" effect didn't come into play at all, perhaps because "to refuse to deny" has come to be almost a synonym for "to tacitly admit" in political journalism.
ajay said,
October 2, 2017 @ 8:07 am
You just have to realize that "absolutely behind" should be read as "late getting there".
As Sir Humphrey pointed out, you have to get behind someone in order to stab them in the back.
Bev Rowe said,
October 3, 2017 @ 9:56 am
The phrase "his apparent lack of discipline doesn't actually exist" reminds me of a title Ben Nicholson wanted to give to one of his paintings: Invisible White Cat Not Under The Table.