Search

Recent research in the United States has found candidates for elected office are able to use a rhetorical form of closed-circuit communication with evangelical Protestants — “God Talk” — that communicates valuable political information without alerting other constituencies. Close observation of the 2010 parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom (U.K.) uncovered what appeared to be a form of God Talk in use by David Cameron and the Conservative Party, especially the use of “broken” to describe the state of Britain. Thus, we assess whether God Talk is an efficacious communication strategy in the U.K. using an experiment that selectively exposes participants to God Talk statements. The mixed results suggest that some forms of God Talk are better than others in conveying to U.K. evangelicals that a candidate is conservative and religious without triggering the same associations by non-evangelical voters. We close with a discussion of the normative impact of such communication strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article investigates the extent and nature of the press coverage of the personal lives and personal qualities of contemporary British political leaders. In particular, it explores the legacy of the politicization of Blair's private persona, or the Blair effect. Was Blair's era a temporary anomaly, or did it have a transformative effect on the way that parties, politicians, and journalists conceive the role of the personal in public discourse and in the construction of a leader's public persona? This research demonstrates that the degree of politicization of private persona still depends, to an important extent, on the personality of the leader and on the leader's communication strategies, and that it is still possible to have a prime minister such as Gordon Brown, who tries to keep his personal life mostly private. But this is only part of the story. Blair's era altered expectations about the role that the personal plays, and ought to play, in public discourse, and how much significance is given to it as a criterion of leadership evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]