Cock-ups and slap-downs: A quantitative analysis of conspiracy rhetoric in the British Parliament 1916–2015

Andrew McKenzie-McHarg and Rolf Fredheim

Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History, 2017, vol. 50, issue 3, 156-169

Abstract: In view of the negative connotations associated with conspiracy theories, what have been the effects of the term's entry into popular vocabulary in the second half of the twentieth century? Has the ascendancy of the term “conspiracy theory” been correlated with a reluctance to allege conspiracy? In this article, the authors use Hansard, the record of British parliamentary debates, as a source of empirical data in demonstrating a significant and steady reduction in the number of conspiracy claims advanced in parliament; a pattern consistent with the broader marginalization of conspiracy rhetoric. This trend was reinforced by a trope that established itself in the 1980s and juxtaposed “conspiracies” with “cock-ups.” The British expression “cock-up” denotes a blunder or act of incompetence. In the second part of this article, the authors argue that the preference for “cock-up theories” over “conspiracy theories” reflects how a policy geared towards privatization and deregulation tended to characterize government action in terms of incompetence, and not of malfeasance.

Date: 2017
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01615440.2017.1320616 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:vhimxx:v:50:y:2017:i:3:p:156-169

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/vhim20

DOI: 10.1080/01615440.2017.1320616

Access Statistics for this article

Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History is currently edited by J. David Hacker and Kenneth Sylvester

More articles in Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().