Richard Reeves

Oh, so many. A recent favourite for me: both Brown and Cameron used the same phrase in their very first statements of the election campaign - that they were on the side of 'people who do the right thing'. There a couple of problems here. First, it is very hard to find someone willing to come out in favour of those doing the wrong thing. Second, neither spelt out what 'right' was, so it was meaningless.

Marcus Fergusson

Maybe this is more of a commonplace cliche than specifically political language but this is certainly a phrase politicians reach for time and again in interview:

"With respect / With the greatest respect" (meaning: I completely disagree with you and I resent having to talk to you.)

Damian

Don't know if this counts but I'm sick of hearing about "hard working families".

Thish

Not meaningless in itself, but it has become so - I get so frustrated when I hear about "efficiency savings". If you know what you are going to cut/reform to find these savings, then say it. In all other cases it comes across as an attempt to hide unpopular choices, or look as if you know how to fund things, when you don't!

Eugene Grant

"Reasonable measures" (meaning: the bare minimum)

Simon Burton

"As I've just explained." meaning: as I have completely avoided explaining.

Fayyaz Muneer

"I think the real issue is [the prepared talking point my staff wrote out for me, which is that we good and they bad]" when asked anything that isn't the most blindingly predictbale question.
Definitely second "whole raft of measures"; note that raft is something you escape from a crisis situation from. It's possible "an ocean-liner of measures" sounds a bit weird, however.

Will Bradley

A surprisingly 'straight' answer from Cameron this morning on the Today Programme: when asked what paper he would naturally be inclined to pick up in the morning:

'I'm actually going to dodge that one if thats OK Evan'

housecarl

I hate it when politicians describe their own or their opponents views as "the politics of..." something or other. Have heard hope, fear, innuendo, the gutter affixed to it thus far... It's such a lazy, pompous-sounding cliche that professes to high-minded exhaltation of their own party or criticism of the other lot, but doesn't actually say anything tangible.

Pete Smith

How about - "trust me" - meaning I'm cleverer and better than you.
Another is “as all the people I meet tell me” as if they are the only ones who ever meet anyone. Most of us interact with lots of “ordinary voters” every day but politicians seem to think they have done something magical by bumping in to a few as they drift around the country at our expense to what are usually organised and highly controlled events.

Duncan

I hate the constant references to "transparency". Brown incessantly refers to trans-pair-ency and Osborne today wanted an answer from Darling about job losses "in the interest of transparency". It is obvious that none of them actually wants to be open or give a straight answer. It is also smacks of protesting too much.

Jamie

I would like to add two to the list.

A lot of politicians begin their arguments with the line: "well, I would argue that..." or "I would say that..." Why the conditional tense? It just makes one wonder - are you arguing that or not? It is a lazy device to appear high-minded and thoughtful. It doesn't work.

A similar case can be made against the term "around" when employed as a proposition. Example: "We are doing a lot of work around that issue". This suggests work being done - not on the subject under question - but some other, connected but unspecified issue.

Beatrice

From the Labour manifesto:

"Only active governments can shape markets to prioritise green growth and job creation. "

What is an 'active government'? Or, more importantly, what's an inactive government?

Andrew Cooper

'Which is why'

"You are right to point out that...which is why I will be announcing today/ my government has/ we increased funding for this last year..."

Step 1: Roll with the punch (a bit) Step 2: Counterpunch with a prepared response Step 3: Hope the interviewer moves on

Lisaten for it. Hardly an interview excahnge to be heard without a 'which is why'

Jamie

I couldn't agree more about "which is why..." it is horrible and everywhere, along with its almost identical twin "and that is why..."

It seems to be a very New Labour creation which has now infected everyone. I can only think it became an industry standard in 1997 when Labour pushed evidence based policy making to shed the quixotism. "Which is why..." tries to suggests some kind of rational, deductive, process that led to policy x or y.

John

'We are not complacent', said after setting out in detail all the good things that have already been done. As if.

I note also how those elusive but vital 'efficiency savings' morph into 'cutting out waste', which is something quite different. Inefficiency is not a sin; waste implies deliberate carelessness. Given the under-whelming results of the last (Gershon) round of 'efficiency savings', do politicians really expect us to believe that they can save vast sums simply through getting more efficient - and that these savings will feed through in 2010?

'It is right that we ...' is another bugbear, implying some higher universal morality than those who simply say 'We believe that we should ...'.

Ewan Hoyle

If anyone says "Size matters" or anything similar in a debate again I may throw something at the telly.