scholarly journals Modelling through Modality: (Re)shaping Brexit

2021 ◽  
pp. 127-153
Author(s):  
Aroa Orrequia-Barea ◽  
Encarnación Almazán Ruiz
Keyword(s):  
Prime Minister ◽  
Political Debate ◽  
Modal Verbs ◽  
Political Speeches ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Jeremy Corbyn

Due to Brexit, the UK has been involved in a continuous political debate between Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, and Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition. This paper compares and analyses the modality used in a corpus consisting of their political speeches until Brexit day. Modal verbs are used to express ability, possibility, willingness, certainty, obligation and necessity. Politicians’ choice of certain words can be a useful tool to affect voters’ decisions and modality is a resource which reinforces that influence. The findings show remarkable similarities between both politicians and reveal that possibility is the most frequent meaning of the modal verbs used in the corpus.

scholarly journals “Let me now answer, very directly, Marie’s question”

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Bull ◽  
Maurice Waddle
Keyword(s):  
Prime Minister ◽  
Salient Feature ◽  
Moral Order ◽  
David Cameron ◽  
New Approach ◽  
The Public ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Two Measures ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Jeremy Corbyn

Abstract Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) in the UK attracts much criticism for the adversarial and occasional aggressive language on display. During his successful campaign for the leadership of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn called for a “new kind of politics” (ITV 2015). One feature of his “new” approach, apparent during his early sessions as Leader of the Opposition, was to include questions to Prime Minister David Cameron sourced from members of the public. Although, subsequently, these “public questions” became less frequent, they provided an opportunity to compare their interactional effects with standard “non-public questions”. Arguably, the aim of this salient feature of corbyn’s approach to questioning Cameron was to redress the moral order of PMQs. We test this proposal via two measures of the PM’s responses: reply rate and personalisation. Results showed that Corbyn’s public questions did not enhance Cameron’s reply rate. However, whereas Cameron used significantly more personal attacks than Corbyn in response to non-public questions, the level of such attacks by the PM for public questions was as low as Corbyn’s, with no significant difference between them. In this latter regard, such an approach showed the potential to mitigate the ritualistic and customary verbal aggression of PMQs.

The Brexit Elections, 2017–19

2021 ◽  
pp. 189-239
Author(s):  
David Denver ◽  
Mark Garnett
Keyword(s):  
Prime Minister ◽  
Party Competition ◽  
General Election ◽  
Left Wing ◽  
David Cameron ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Jeremy Corbyn ◽  
Theresa May ◽  
The Eu

The years immediately after the 2015 general election were dominated by another vote, held in 2016. In 2013, the electoral challenge from UKIP had forced David Cameron to promise an in–out referendum on the EU should his party win the next general election. Cameron fulfilled his promise, after negotiations with the EU which only partially addressed the grievances of Eurosceptics in UKIP and within his own party. The chapter discusses the narrow victory for ‘Leave’ in the 2016 referendum, arising from divisions within the UK which cut across previous party allegiances and introduced a new element of volatility in an electorate which was already barely recognizable from that of 1964. The situation was complicated further by the election of the radical left-wing MP Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader after his party’s 2015 defeat. By contrast, when David Cameron resigned as Conservative leader and Prime Minister after the referendum he was succeeded by Theresa May, who was regarded as a pragmatic centre-right politician who could negotiate a compromise ‘Brexit’ deal with the EU. The chapter examines May’s failure to carry out this promise, marked in particular by her inept attempt to secure a convincing parliamentary majority in the 2017 general election. When May was forced from office in 2019 she was succeeded by Boris Johnson, a far more controversial and divisive character who nevertheless was able to lead the Conservatives to a comfortable electoral victory, not least because their pro-European opponents were hopelessly divided. However, the victorious Conservatives had no reason to feel complacent; even if Johnson’s government could deliver the favourable Brexit deal which it had promised, over the years since 1964 the British electorate had become far more fickle and parties were increasingly vulnerable to events outside their control. Within a few months of the 2019 election, party competition in Britain, which had seemed so stable back in 1964, was exposed to a new and deadly source of disturbance—the outbreak in China of the Covid-19 virus—which presented the most serious challenge faced by any UK government since 1945.

Brexit and Political Personality: The Psychological Profiles of Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn

2021 ◽  
pp. 122-136
Author(s):  
Christ’l De Landtsheer ◽  
Shana Hollander ◽  
Peter Maene
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Leadership Style ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Key Players ◽  
General Elections ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Jeremy Corbyn

This article focuses on the role of personality in the case of Brexit, the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on January 31, 2020. A decisive step in Brexit were the general elections on December 12, 2019, in which Boris Johnson, Conservative Prime Minister of the UK and advocate of Brexit, defeated Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the Labour Party and ‘neutral’ about Brexit. Political psychology considers personality as a major factor in political developments. This article presents the results of an assessment of the personalities of Johnson and Corbyn, and it argues that the personality of these key players influenced the Brexit process. The analysis is based on the theory and methods of Immelman, Immelman & Steinberg, and Mastenbroek. Our findings suggest that Johnson’s charismatic personality, his dominant leadership style, and his negotiating skills contributed to his electoral victory and to the realization of Brexit. Johnson profited from Corbyn’s lack of personal charisma and from his undecisive and divisive leadership regarding Brexit.

scholarly journals Losing the Discursive Battle but Winning the Ideological War: Who Holds Thatcherite Values Now?

2021 ◽  
pp. 003232172098670
Author(s):  
Stephen Farrall ◽  
Emily Gray ◽  
Phil Mike Jones ◽  
Colin Hay
Keyword(s):  
Survey Data ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
New Right ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
Margaret Thatcher ◽  
The Uk

In what ways, if at all, do past ideologies shape the values of subsequent generations of citizens? Are public attitudes in one period shaped by the discourses and constructions of an earlier generation of political leaders? Using Thatcherism – one variant of the political New Right of the 1980s – as the object of our enquiries, this article explores the extent to which an attitudinal legacy is detectable among the citizens of the UK some 40 years after Margaret Thatcher first became Prime Minister. Our article, drawing on survey data collected in early 2019 (n = 5781), finds that younger generations express and seemingly embrace key tenets of her and her governments’ philosophies. Yet at the same time, they are keen to describe her government’s policies as having ‘gone too far’. Our contribution throws further light on the complex and often covert character of attitudinal legacies. One reading of the data suggests that younger generations do not attribute the broadly Thatcherite values that they hold to Thatcher or Thatcherism since they were socialised politically after such values had become normalised.

scholarly journals The future of social care funding: who pays?

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Kenny ◽  
J. Barnfield ◽  
L. Daly ◽  
A. Dunn ◽  
D. Passey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase 1 ◽  
List Type ◽  
Political Debate ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Means Testing ◽  
Financial Products ◽  
Funding System ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Care Costs

AbstractWith the UK population ageing, deciding upon a satisfactory and sustainable system for the funding of people’s long-term care (LTC) needs has long been a topic of political debate. Phase 1 of the Care Act 2014 (“the Act”) brought in some of the reforms recommended by the Dilnot Commission in 2011. However, the Government announced during 2015 that Phase 2 of “the Act” such as the introduction of a £72,000 cap on Local Authority care costs and a change in the means testing thresholds1 would be deferred until 2020. In addition to this delay, the “freedom and choice” agenda for pensions has come into force. It is therefore timely that the potential market responses to help people pay for their care within the new pensions environment should be considered. In this paper, we analyse whether the proposed reforms meet the policy intention of protecting people from catastrophic care costs, whilst facilitating individual understanding of their potential care funding requirements. In particular, we review a number of financial products and ascertain the extent to which such products might help individuals to fund the LTC costs for which they would be responsible for meeting. We also produce case studies to demonstrate the complexities of the care funding system. Finally, we review the potential impact on incentives for individuals to save for care costs under the proposed new means testing thresholds and compare these with the current thresholds. We conclude that:∙Although it is still too early to understand exactly how individuals will respond to the pensions freedom and choice agenda, there are a number of financial products that might complement the new flexibilities and help people make provision for care costs.∙The new care funding system is complex making it difficult for people to understand their potential care costs.∙The current means testing system causes a disincentive to save. The new means testing thresholds provide a greater level of reward for savers than the existing thresholds and therefore may increase the level of saving for care; however, the new thresholds could still act as a barrier since disincentives still exist.

scholarly journals Interview with Guido Rings: “We need intercultural solidarity if we want to survive and prosper in a world hit by ultranationalism”

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 75
Author(s):  
Stephen Trinder
Keyword(s):  
Prime Minister ◽  
The Other ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
David Cameron ◽  
Far Right ◽  
High Profile ◽  
Vice Chair ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Executive Agency ◽  
The Eu

As a master’s and Ph.D. student at Anglia Ruskin University in 2011, I recall the central message in lectures given by my eventual Ph.D. supervisor Professor Guido Rings was that we cannot underestimate the enduring strength of the legacy of colonialism in Europe and its influence on shaping contemporary attitudes towards immigration. Indeed, as I was completing my studies, I became increasingly aware of the negative rhetoric towards migrants in politics and right-wing press. In an attempt to placate the far-right of his party and address a growing threat from the UK Independence Party (UKIP), a discourse of ‘othernising’ migrants on the basis of their supposed rejection of ‘Britishness’ from former UK Prime Minister David Cameron in particular caught my attention. The result of this was tightening of immigration regulations, which culminated of course in the now-infamous Brexit vote of 2016. Almost a decade after my graduation, Professor Rings is currently Vice Chair for the Research Executive Agency of the European Commission and continues to work at Anglia Ruskin University at the level of Ph.D. supervisor. He still publishes widely in the field of Migration Studies and his recent high-profile book The Other in Contemporary Migrant Cinema (Routledge, 2016) and editorships in the fields of culture and identity (iMex Interdisciplinario Mexico) argue for increased intercultural solidarity in Europe as well as a strengthening of supranational organizations like the EU and the UN to offset growing nationalism. I got in touch with Professor Rings to find out where he feels Europe stands today with regard to migration and get his comments on the continued rise of nationalism on the continent.

scholarly journals “Salus Populi Suprema Lex”: Considerations on the Initial Response of the United Kingdom to the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evaldo Favi ◽  
Francesca Leonardis ◽  
Tommaso Maria Manzia ◽  
Roberta Angelico ◽  
Yousof Alalawi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Initial Response ◽  
Primary Reaction ◽  
Political Debate ◽  
Accurate Analysis ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Public Media ◽  
The Uk

In several countries worldwide, the initial response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been heavily criticized by general public, media, and healthcare professionals, as well as being an acrimonious topic in the political debate. The present article elaborates on some aspects of the United Kingdom (UK) primary reaction to SARS-CoV-2 pandemic; specifically, from February to July 2020. The fact that the UK showed the highest mortality rate in Western Europe following the first wave of COVID-19 certainly has many contributing causes; each deserves an accurate analysis. We focused on three specific points that have been insofar not fully discussed in the UK and not very well known outside the British border: clinical governance, access to hospital care or intensive care unit, and implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions. The considerations herein presented on these fundamental matters will likely contribute to a wider and positive discussion on public health, in the context of an unprecedented crisis.

The Special Relationship and the Falklands War

2015 ◽  
pp. 40-92
Author(s):  
Sally-Ann Treharne
Keyword(s):  
Prime Minister ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Falkland Islands ◽  
Great Success ◽  
Special Relationship ◽  
Economic Uncertainty ◽  
National Pride ◽  
Falklands War ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Uk

The Falklands War between Britain and Argentina from April to June 1982 was an emotive political and ideological issue for the UK and its Prime Minister, who fought tirelessly to safeguard the Falkland islanders’ right to self-determination. The war represented a considerable financial and moral commitment by the British to the Falkland Islands and their 1,800 inhabitants in a time of significant economic uncertainty in the UK. Notwithstanding this, Britain’s hegemony and influence over the islands was reasserted in the face of perceived Argentine aggression. Britain’s victory was considered a great success in the UK given the strategic difficulties involved in orchestrating a war in a wind-swept archipelago nearly 8,000 miles from the British mainland, but a mere 400 miles from Argentina. Moreover, it helped to secure Thatcher’s re-election the following year and was a source of national pride for the jubilant British public.1

Electing a Leader

2020 ◽  
pp. 89-112
Author(s):  
Rodney Brazier
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
Formal System ◽  
Conservative Party ◽  
General Election ◽  
Opposition Party ◽  
Leadership Elections ◽  
The Government ◽  
Jeremy Corbyn ◽  
Theresa May

A person normally becomes Prime Minister either after winning a General Election, or after the Government party has elected a new leader to succeed a Prime Minister. Leadership of one of the main political parties is therefore a prerequisite for entering Number 10 Downing Street. This chapter examines exactly how the main parties have elected their leaders since 1902, setting the processes in their historical contexts, and explaining why the systems have been changed down the years. The Conservative Party did not have a formal system until after a major crisis in 1963; Labour has always elected its leader; but the systems which have been used have been altered for political reasons. Recent leadership elections, e.g. of Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and Jeremy Corbyn, are examined. The chapter also explains the ways in which an opposition party can get rid of a leader who doesn’t want to quit.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document