X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Coffee House

The Gove guide to composition

30 June 2013

3:26 PM

30 June 2013

3:26 PM

Michael Gove is not the only minister to be frustrated by the poor quality of letters drafted for his signature. One minister was horrified to find his reply to the Prime Minister starting ‘Good to here from you’. Another complains that his name is still spelt wrong, three years after he started in the job. But Gove is, probably, the only one who would send a memo to his ministers and civil servants urging them to read ‘George Orwell and Evelyn Waugh, Jane Austen and George Eliot, Matthew Parris and Christopher Hitchens’ to improve their prose.’

The memo contains, what he dubs, Gove’s Golden Rules for writing a letter which I’ve reproduced in my Mail on Sunday column. But the introduction to these rules is also well worth reading. Here it is:

Thank you for your letter of the 17th asking me, on behalf of your colleagues, how I like letters to be drafted.

Letters should be concise, precise and polite.

Concision is itself a form of politeness. Ministers, and taxpayers, lead busy lives. Making points briefly saves everyone time. Of course, on occasion, some factual detail, such as the inadvisability of ending a sentence with a preposition or the folly of using impact as a verb or even the ugliness of behaviours as a usage when behaviour covers a variety of human activity, might require a complex longer sentence. But brevity is always a virtue.

As is precision. So read the original letter to which we are replying. List the points raised or questions asked in your own notebook. Make sure you are precise in your requests to colleagues for the information required to address those points or answer those queries. Do not accept general formulaic replies to precise questions. So, when someone asks why the Secretary of State referred to Mr Men in a speech which discussed history do not send back a standard reply on the national curriculum review, or even the draft history programme of study. Instead, go back to the original speech, check the reference, and provide a full and proper explanation of the reference and the underpinning reasoning for using that reference. The more care that is taken to address the direct questions raised in the letter, the less likely the letter is to be sent back with cross annotations. Time spent on reconnaissance is seldom wasted.

Politeness requires getting the name of the correspondent correct and maintaining a sympathetic tone. It does not require a writing style modelled on Leonard Sachs from “The Good Old Days” or Sir Humphrey in “Yes, Minister”. Using inflated political rhetoric of the “first may I say how much I care about X” is not polite. It is a time-wasting exercise in self-regarding pomposity. So don’t even go there. Instead use direct, clear and vigorous language. Make the paragraph the unit of composition. Devote one paragraph to each topic. And one sentence to each idea within that topic. Ideally, every sentence should introduce the topic of the paragraph. And the concluding sentence should return to, or summarise, that theme. Use the active, not the passive voice. Ministers have decided to increase spending on the poorest children. Poorer children are not having a harder time under this Government. Cut out unnecessary words. For example, rather than writing “the policy that we are introducing is intended to drive a change in behaviours on the part of teachers with respect to the poorest and most disadvantaged children and young people” say “the policy will change how teachers behave towards poorer students”. And make the most emphatic point at the end of a sentence. For example, instead of saying, “the coalition government, which has been an unprecedented historic success, was formed in May three years ago”, write “the coalition government, formed three years ago this May, has been an unprecedented historic success”. The more care you take over elegant composition, the greater the compliment you pay the correspondent.

Some people, of course, prefer bullet points to continuous prose. You should use such a device sparingly. But if it seems appropriate, then remember to keep each point to one idea

[Alt-Text]


Gove’s letter ends with a typically polite Gove sign off:

I hope this reply is helpful.

If I can be of any further help, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. And thank you for your consistent commitment to the highest standards in public service.

Michael

This memo makes it rather tempting to write to the Department of Education to see whether Gove’s Golden Rules are being followed.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close