Bluntness is not about being rude. It is about refusing to let important matters disappear behind vague wording, circular replies and polished confusion.
The IFPC manifesto sets out why public language should be clearer, more direct and more useful to the people expected to understand it.
Public statements, official notices, policies and replies are often written in a way that protects the organisation more than it informs the reader.
IFPC starts from the opposite position. If people are affected by a decision, they should be able to understand what has happened, why it has happened, and what can be done next.
Public language
Bluntness is not aggression. It is the disciplined use of direct language when vague language has become a barrier to understanding.
A proper answer deals with the point raised. It does not replace the question with something easier, safer or more convenient.
Public wording should not be filled with procedural phrases, soft reassurance or decorative language that adds little.
Sometimes the most useful act is to say plainly what everyone can see, but nobody in authority has said clearly.
The manifesto rejects the habits that make public language harder to understand and public accountability harder to pursue.
Replies that restate the process, repeat the policy or describe the organisation’s position without answering the actual question.
Language that appears formal and careful but leaves the reader less certain about what is actually being said.
Long explanations that look open while avoiding the central facts, decisions or responsibilities.
Making simple issues sound technical, procedural or inaccessible when plain language would have been sufficient.
People should not need specialist knowledge, repeated clarification or insider familiarity to understand information intended for them.
A reply should address the substance of the question asked, not merely acknowledge it, reframe it or bury it beneath process.
Clear wording does not weaken serious work. It usually shows that the work has been properly understood.
A statement can be courteous, careful and professional while still being direct enough to be useful.
Dates, documents, decisions and facts are more useful than mood, reassurance or repeated claims of commitment.
Direct language should clarify the issue. It should not become abuse, performance or unnecessary hostility.
People cannot properly support, oppose, challenge or respond to decisions that have not been explained in language they can understand.
Clearer language gives people a fairer chance to understand what affects them and what options they may have.
Better wording can reduce complaints, confusion, repeat enquiries and mistrust caused by avoidable ambiguity.
Debate improves when people know what is being claimed, what is being avoided and what still needs evidence.
Accountability starts with language that allows people to see what has happened and who is responsible.
The purpose of bluntness is not to make public life harsher. It is to make public language clearer, public answers more useful and public understanding harder to avoid.