Addressee orientation in political speeches: tracing the dialogical 'other' in argumentative monologue

This article suggests that the addressees as the dialogical ‘other’ loom large in monological political speeches. However, political speeches are produced under conditions of addressee heterogeneity, i.e. the speakers do not actually know who they will be talking to. It will be argued that the addressees are nevertheless a crucial element in speakers’ context models, that speakers orientate towards imagined addressees and that certain aspects – what possible addressees may do, think or believe and that they are a part of an imagined community – are particularly relevant from the speakers’ point of view. An analysis of addressee orientation in political speeches aims at reconstructing speakers’ conceptualisations of possible addressees. The analysis reveals patterns of addressee orientation which suggest that the addressees are framed in terms of presumed nearness (i.e. agreement) or distance (i.e. disagreement) to the speakers. Both presumed agreement and disagreement will be discussed in terms of how the speakers aim to impose their default perspectives on the addressees. The analysis is based on examples from a substantial corpus of German chancellors’ political speeches from 1951-2001.

A model intervenes: the many faces of moral hazard

This article builds on advances in social ontology to develop a new understanding of how mainstream economic modelling affects reality. We propose a new framework for analysing and describing how models intervene in the social sphere. This framework allows us to identify and articulate three key epistemic features of models as interventions: specificity, portability and formal precision. The second part of the article uses our framework to demonstrate how specificity, portability and formal precision explain the use of moral hazard models in a variety of different policy contexts, including worker compensation schemes, bank regulation and the euro-sovereign debt crisis.

Half-remembered quotations from mostly forgotten speeches: the limits of Labour’s European policy discourse

This article uses discourse analysis to study the continuities in British foreign policy thinking within the Labour party from the 1960s to the present day. Using representative extracts from speeches by Hugh Gaitskell, Harold Wilson, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, it identifies the ideational consis- tencies in the leaders’ attitudes to: Empire; federalism in the EEC/EU; and laying down conditions that have to be met before any constructive engagement with ‘Europe’ can be countenanced. We argue that these consistencies, spanning a 50-year period, exemplify a certain stagnation both within Labour’s European discourses and within British foreign policy thinking more widely. We develop the idea that Labour party thinking has been crucially framed by both small ‘c’ conser- vative and upper-case Conservative ideology, popularised by Winston Churchill in his ‘three circles’ model of British foreign policy.

Parliamentary sovereignty, popular sovereignty, and Henry Parker's adjudicative standpoint

Discussions of popular sovereignty in early modern England have usually been premised upon a sharp distinction between ‘legal/constitutional’ forms of discourse (which merely interpret the law) and ‘political’ ones (which focus upon the right to make it). In such readings of the period, Henry Parker has a pivotal position as a writer who abandoned merely legalistic thinking. This chapter takes a different view. It argues that Parker’s major intellectual achievement was not so much to abandon legal/constitutional discourse as to offer a theorisation of its most distinctive features: he offered an account of a new kind of politics in which concern for ‘interests’ in property and in self-preservation replaced humanist concern with promotion of virtue. Parker drew upon ideas about representation best expressed by Sir Thomas Smith and ideas about law best expressed by Oliver St John. The theory he developed was not intended as a justification of legislative sovereignty, but of adjudicative supremacy. His picture of the two Houses as supreme adjudicators was meant to block the path to direct democracy. But the adjudicative standpoint they came to occupy presupposed that freeborn adults had ‘interests’ in life, liberty, and possessions. This had democratising implications.

Democratic Deficit in the EU : Towards Parliamentary Democracy?!

Nowadays, the western societies are based on parliamentary democracy. Therefore, weak legislative power of the European Parliament is alleged for the democratic deficit in the EU. How it can be possible that the parliamentary democracy which is practiced on the national level can be achieved beyond the nation-states without diminishing the democracy at the nation-states? If not, how legitimacy can be obtained so that the continued existence and expansion of the EU should be justified? Since expectations for democratization of the EU are still unmet, finding answers to the actual questions is a great appeal. The thesis will explore the fundamental debates and arguments contributing to the democracy in the EU through the parliaments. I will try to reflect to the different ways of thinking and the prospects of establishing parliamentary democracy beyond the nation states.