I’m deeply concerned politicians overuse “deeply concerned” simply to avoid saying much else

It’s what you say when you have little else to say. It’s lazy, it’s trite, and it absolves telling people what you might actually do.

Two words that politicians, or most likely their ‘spin doctors’ in Comms, lazily reach for in the face of tragic events:

“Deeply concerned…”

I got into something of a social media spat with the august personage of former Times columnist, and broadcaster David Aaronovitch over the weekend for responding to a tweet from the Prime Minister over the horrific attack on a train on Saturday night that has had devastating consequences for at least five of eleven people injured.

David believed I was taking a tribal hit at a Labour premier simply because I’m editor of ConservativeHome. He was wrong.

I mean I do think Keir Starmer is an awful, disingenuous, visionless, hypocritical, weak Prime Minister, and I will delight at the opportunity to point out why I think he isn’t up to the job but actually I wasn’t targeting him, or making use of a tragedy. David simply knee jerked to that conclusion.

What made me roll my eyes was that Sir Keir Starmer had said he was ‘deeply concerned’ about the ‘appalling’ events on that train where people ran from a knife wielding man who wanted to stab and harm people.

‘Deeply concerned’ – not truly madly deeply concerned. I’m deriding the phrase not the incident or, actually, the PM.

David asked whether I was suggesting Keir Starmer wasn’t truly concerned. My answer, born of long dislike of this phrase was that whilst I suspect as a human he is, as PM I don’t care.

Now before you have me down as callous, unsympathetic or as no doubt Labour would put it “an unfeeling Tory” I want to ask a question: when something happens, that’s bad, or has the potential to become very bad, do you want to know how your Prime Minister feels, or do you expect them to say what – they might do, are doing, might consider doing – instead?

Firstly, I suspect the British public, and I’ll apply this to all Prime Ministers, past present and future, don’t primarily care what the PM feels about a situation, and almost certainly care less than the PM and his Comms team think they care, about how the PM feels. What they’d like to know is what, if anything he, or in the Conservatives case he or she, will do? 

A little less conversation a little more action please, is the basic theme.

But wait, I hear you cry, he can’t just opine without the police investigating, tracing and arresting a suspect, and securing the safety of other passengers. It would be unwise before it’s known from the emergency services the extent of injuries, or god forbid, fatalities, to speculate. And as to motive, social media can’t help itself, but there’s every reason why everyone up to an including the PM should hold back.

It’s a good point Kemi Badenoch made over the weekend.

However, politicians have been asked by pesky journalists so many times “why has X ‘failed to comment’ ?” and so demand in the era of 24 hour media for an oven-ready immediate response that shows they have spoken, with the appropriate tone and signalling acknowledgement has grown across Whitehall/Political Comms teams.

And more often than not they reach quickly and lazily for ‘deeply concerned’. It is now a Shiboleth. It is supposed to show you care, whilst I can’t help feeling it creates an impression these days, that actually you really might leave it at that and not say or do anything further.

But I’m sure politicians are concerned. They should be. I’d be surprised if they weren’t, but apart from that phrase and an added ‘thoughts and prayers’ and that’s your instant response catered for. Box ticked.

Increasingly they are wrong. Especially for a man who is still blamed for not being wholly frank about the Southport attacker, or indeed being wholly frank.

When I worked in the Foreign Office, and then Home Office for Sir James Cleverly he took such a dislike to the phrase we actually banned civil servants and diplomats from using it in their communications. Explaining in December 2022 that it was lazy and in our view meant nothing tangible, we also suggested its overuse allowed those who deployed it regularly, to suggest they were themselves removed from their responsibilities to act if there was something they could do.

Cleverly’s rationale was diplomats, but also politicians in government, are not distanced social commentators about events but active participants or ‘players on the pitch’. Their responsibility is to do – or to defend not doing – not to give an abstract reflection as if academically independent and free of responsibility or duty.

When a politician tells me they are ‘concerned’ about something it’s like those announcements on London Underground that state, apropos of nothing, “A good service is operation on all lines“.

Excellent. Why are you telling me?

A good service on all lines is the basic default expectation passengers should have of the Underground system. What do TfL want, a medal? That is a line that literally explains their job, the very basics of what they exist for.

I’d be upset if a politician wasn’t concerned. But how concerned? Should there be categories of concern?

For example is ‘very concerned’, more concern than deep concern? Can you be deeply concerned about anti social behaviour outside a venue in one’s constituency in the same way, credibly, be deeply concerned over a year’s war in Gaza? Go back through the ‘deeply concerned’ archive and you’ll find examples of people who think you can, and still didn’t offer a solution to either.

There are alternatives. Indeed the shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp has today on ConservativeHome laid out what the government, could do, and what the Conservatives would do. It’s also possible not to sound heartless or lacking empathy and not reach for ‘deeply concerned’, indeed within the prism of our ‘war on dc’ as it was privately known, banning those two words led to much more human responses that avoided, unlike Keir Starmer, the idea that all posts were written by ChatGPT.

The following was written by HumanGD. That’s me.

“The attack tonight on a train where a number of people have been stabbed and injured will shock people up and down the country. I’ve asked to be kept updated on developments. We should let our incredible emergency services, and train staff to get on with their jobs, and I’ve asked them to give the public information as soon as they are able to but not in the midst of a live response. It may be necessary to look at what this government can do further to prevent such incidents in future, and I’ll be asking the Home Office to point to any ways I can help to do just that. But we too are best serving those effected by being patient, thoughtful, and not rushing to judgements or conclusions”

Seriously, it’s not that hard. He’d sound ‘deeply concerned’ without letting either word into the text, or to do all the heavy lifting if it were. I count three announced actions, and two bits of appropriate advice. It can be done, and it’s far better. It shows grip, gravitas, and good handling.

Indeed an insistence on using ‘deeply concerned’ usually suggests to me, that deep down, and to just be seen to say something the person adopting it, is anything but.

Mr Aaronovitch is welcome to disagree.