oh my word!

Icouldn’t help but be struck by two starkly different ways of using words we’ve all seen over the past few weeks.

It is the way that politicians (all of them) speak, compared to the way members of the legal profession conduct themselves.

I was appalled by MPs’ behaviour during the last Prime Minister’s Questions session before parliament was prorogued. And I’ve been disgusted at the antics on political discussion TV programmes such as the BBC’s Question Time.

Politicians don’t answer questions. They don’t even register that a question has been asked. They interrupt, bray like the most stubborn of donkeys, and are childishly rude.

I wouldn’t presume to tell anyone which side to back in the Brexit debate, but I’d like to use a point of argument from each side for illustrative purposes.

Those in favour of leaving the European Union maintain the result of the 2016 referendum is clear: the UK voted to leave. Remain supporters say much more information has come to light in the intervening years, and a confirmatory vote to ask the people “is this really what you want?” would be a wise move.

Both of these statements deserve discussion. These are difficult, intricate questions, no matter which side of the argument you support. These points should be calmly and rationally talked through.

But that isn’t happening. Nobody says: “You make a good point, let’s talk about it.” Politicians ignore whatever was last said, then stand up and howl their fury at the full moon.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court proceedings were reasonable and rational. The points of view were heard in full. The 11 sitting justices intervened only occasionally with pertinent questions.

The definition of “debate” is: formal and rational discussion. A court case is a form of debate. You may not believe this, but I have heard the House of Commons described as a debating chamber.

Politicians don’t debate, they just stand up and shout their brand of rhetoric. Politicians demand to be heard but refuse to listen.

Language is, at its basest level, nothing more than a method of communication. This newspaper column has the sub-title “in defence of the English language”, and constructive communication is surely the first thing to defend.

Why can’t politicians achieve constructive communication? I’d like to put that question to a politician, but politicians don’t answer questions.