Rhetorical Analysis of “Wellbeing Index”

In his speech conveyed on Thursday 25^th November 2010 about well-being index, David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, announced plans to introduce a wellbeing index from next year through the Office of National Statistics. He insisted that the actions a government takes could make people “feel better as well as worse.” Prime Minister illustrated that it was very time to recognize that GDP was an “incomplete way” of measuring the country’s progress. He argued that it was time for British government to measure not only economic growth but also well-being improvement and said that well-being index can take charge of it. He started his speech off by admitting that there are three main objections to his proposal and he tries to answer to those questions. The three main objections are: first, there is the worry that this is a distraction from the major, urgent economic tasks at hand. Second, there is the criticism that improving people’s wellbeing is beyond the realm of government, and third, there is a suspicion that the whole thing is a bit woolly a bit impractical. To these suspicions, he logically answers and challenges them.

The speaker, David William Donald Cameron, was born 9 October 1966 and is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Cameron studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford University. He delivered the speech with the aim to introduce people the “wellbeing index” which will measure the United Kingdom’s progress as a country not just by economic growth but also by improving qualities of people’s lives. Furthermore, by giving his speech, he aims to persuade the British citizens who are concerned and suspicious that well-being index can work successfully and the British government can play a crucial role with it. His audience is supposedly the concerned British citizens. The organization of his speech is interesting and clear in that he juxtaposes three oppositions against him and addresses those suspicions one by one logically. Moreover, after the speech is delivered, there’s question and answer session in which he further clarifies his argument by answering those questions.

As stated above, his speech is clear and persuasive in that he addresses and rebuts oppositions against him and answers the questions that emerged after his speech was delivered. More specifically, David Cameron challenged those who suggested that a government could not affect how people felt, “or do very much to improve wellbeing” and said the measure as a result can open up a national debate about “how we can build a better life together.” Furthermore, the Prime Minister rejected claims that the initiative was “a bit woolly and impractical” as he insisted that finding out what could help people live “the good life” and acting on it was the “serious business of the government”. (Cameron, 2) He elaborates that the Office of National Statistics (ONS) would devise measures of progress and would lead a public debate about what mattered most to people. The information collected would give a general picture of how life was improving and help the country to re-evaluate its priorities. Additionally, he responded to the challenge saying that the government’s priority should be economic growth by rebutting that GDP is an incomplete way of measuring the growth of the country.

Cameron established his ethos in the speech by referring to several other intellectuals who are in line with his argument. His credibility as a speaker is strengthened by mentioning;

Now, of course, you can’t legislate for fulfillment or satisfaction,

       But I do believe that government has the power to help improve

wellbeing, and I’m not alone in that belief. We’ve got a whole

host of world-leading economists and social scientists, including

Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen, who have

developed a new school of thought about government’s role

in improving people’s lives in the broadest sense.

Here with us today we have Lord Layard, Professor Helliwell,

Professor Felicia Huppert and academics from all over the world.

By mentioning other professionals, his argument that the government can play an important role in developing and improving people’s quality of life seems to be more credible and well-supported. Additionally, when he argues that GDP alone cannot represent either economic growth and improvement of quality of life, he quotes a famous speech by Robert Kennedy made during the 1968 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, in which he said that GDP did “not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play”.  Mentioning and referring to other significant people helped him establish the ethos pretty clearly. Also, his speech tone and fair eye contact make him look more confident and assuring which also lead to build up his credibility as a speaker.

   During his speech, he also appeals to the audience’s emotion in several ways. He focuses on family in his country. For instance, the Prime Minister said “Without a job that pays a decent wage, it is hard for people to look after their families in the way they want, whether that’s taking the children on holiday or making your home a more comfortable place.” This appeals emotionally to people especially who are parents. Additionally, he also puts emphasis on better life worth living, which also touches on people’s emotion. In the speech he delivers he said “ If your goal in politics is to help make a better life for people – which mine is- and if you know, both in your gut and from a huge body of evidence that prosperity alone can’t deliver a better life, then you’ve got to take practical steps to make sure government is properly focused on our quality of life as well as economic growth, and that is what we are trying to do.” He persuades people to be motivated to pursue a better happy life. Lastly, at the end of the speech he also articulated that “Parents need to know that the concerns they feel about the sort of country their children are growing up in are felt and acted on by their government too. That’s why anyone who cares about community, about civility, about making this country more family-friendly I think should welcome what the Office for National Statistics is doing.” As he closed up his speech, he made a lasting impression by appealing to parents’ emotion to consent with him about the inauguration of well-being index held by Office of National Statistics. He built his pathos effectively throughout his speech.

    Overall, his speech on well-being index was fairly persuasive as he refuted the oppositions one by one providing reasons for his argument. The way he delivered his speech was credible enough as he referred to several other professionals who share similar opinions with him and he appealed moderately to the audience’s emotion. Furthermore, as he answered concretely to the following questions after his speech was finished, it also made his speech look more solid.  

Works Cited

Cameron, David. “Wellbeing Index” 25 Nov 2010. British Prime Minister Policy Speech. [full transcript]