The rules
|
Version 0 of 1. When two people disagree, it is an argument. When they recruit people into rival camps of disagreement, it is a feud. Once the original subject of disagreement is forgotten but the feud continues, it may qualify as a vendetta. An argument that fizzles out before it can even become a feud is a spat. Feuds flourish best among groups of people who are expected to get along for some reason that doesn't mean they necessarily like each other, such as families and political parties. Political feuds are conducted through media briefings. Family feuds could in theory be managed this way but it is harder to persuade journalists to run stories about unreturned lawnmowers and late Aunt Mildred's misappropriated carriage clock than about differences between the Home Office and the education secretary over counter-terrorism policy. Briefing once used to involve explaining what the policy is and how it will work. Modern-day briefing is more a matter of explaining what the policy should be and why someone else's stupidity means it is something else instead. Most briefing is an extension of the ancient practice of gossiping – it involves muttering conspiratorially about other people's failings in a confidential manner that implies the information should travel no further while intending the opposite. The key difference is that a lunchtime spent gossiping counts as recreation while a briefing over lunch can be charged to expenses. It is a common misconception that political briefing is a mark of disloyalty. In fact, most of the time it is driven by extreme loyalty, albeit often to a prospective leadership contender who isn't the current party leader or to an idea that isn't yet party policy. To brief is thus an irregular verb that conjugates as follows: I clarify my position You (sing) brief He/She/It spreads poison We encourage open exchange of ideas You (plr) are a faction They are hopelessly divided When politicians discuss feuds, they prefer metaphors of physical combat. This enables them to imagine that what they are doing is in some way adventurous, with a frisson of danger. Instructing someone to get their tanks off your lawn sounds a lot more impressive then asking them to reverse their Mondeo out of your parking space. Hence disputes for control of specific areas of policy are always "Whitehall turf wars"; parties containing ideological differences must always be said to be in "civil war". The exception is feuds between different parties in a coalition, which must be analysed using marital metaphors. Leaders begin their collaboration in a state of honeymoon and then enter a cycle of rows (always "bitter") and reconciliations (always marked by "lingering resentments"). Eventually, talk turns to managed separation and divorce. Note: this metaphor does not work in reverse. Never discuss your marriage as if it were a coalition government. The intensity of a political feud is subject to the Blair-Brown law of governing dysfunctionality. This dictates that the longer a row between ministers continues, the probability of a spokesman declaring that it is nothing like as bad as things got under New Labour approaches one. Levels of venom in media briefings can be measured in TB-GBs, where a low TB-GB count constitutes a short item on the inside pages of a newspaper suggesting that a previously announced policy may be revised. A high TB-GB count would involve a front-page story containing unattributed quotes that present senior figures in the government as administratively incompetent and mentally inadequate. Glossary Source Adviser to person who was involved in an argument. Senior source Person who was in the building when the argument happened. Source familiar with the discussions Person who was in the room when the argument happened. Source with a good knowledge of the discussions Principle antagonist. Westminster was rocked by X Journalists spent the afternoon on Twitter laughing about X. Public outrage about X People who aren't even journalists complained on Twitter about X. |