A Functional Analysis of the 2012 London Mayor Debate

Abstract

In April of 2012, three candidates (Boris Johnson, Conservative; Ken Livingstone, Labour; Brian Paddick, LiberalDemocrat) participated in a debate for the office of the Mayor of London. This study applied the Functional Theory of Political Campaign Discourse to this important campaign event. In this debate, acclaims (53%) outnumbered attacks (40%) whereas defences were the least common function (7%). Attacks were only directed toward the two leading candidates and the incumbent (Johnson) was attacked much more than the leading challenger (Livingstone). The incumbent acclaimed more (64% to 46%) and attacked less (24% to 51%) than the challengers. This relationship was particularly sharp when they discussed past deeds or record in office (75% of the incumbents statements on past deeds were acclaims, 25% were attacks; the incumbents attacked much more than they acclaimed, 91% to 9%, when they discussed record in office). These candidates discussed policy (77%) more often than character (23%). These results are compared with results of other studies of political leader’s debates in the literature.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.