On the election trail, a politician would be more likely to say...
- Votes: 386
- Comments: 8
- Added: May 2004
The latter is better as it avoids the passive voice, but they really shouldn't privatise the railways.
Whilst the second sentence might be gramatically the most correct, politicians are more likely to use the first because it enables them to disassociate their party from a potentially unpopular action.
Good point, luke88. But it also depends on the country this poilitician is debating in. In an authoritarian country, people might approve the concentration of private companies in the hands of the state.
"We will"... is better, because it is more direct, but for that very reason I think most politictians in this country (UK), on the hoof, would go for the latter, as it places no onus on them individually and also fills more space and time.
It would depend on whether they felt their audience would view privatization as a bad thing (former) or good thing (latter). The former, from a politician, sounds like a warning. If it's a promise, they will want to take credit more directly.
In Australia at least, no pro-privatisation politician would ever be honest enough to publicly admit this intention. Thay would promise that they are committed to providing a top-notch rail service until they got elected, then they'd privatise it and let it be run into the ground while they get around in their publicly funded chauffeur-driven cars.
"Let's face it: There will be a privatization of the railway, whether we like it or not." The bad things they're planning are always framed as TINA.
'Will'is better for an election- its more direct.