The UK Government’s “Balancing Act” in the Pandemic: Rational Decision-Making from an Argumentative Perspective

Abstract

This chapter looks at how the “balance” between lives, livelihoods and other concerns was talked about in four main newspapers in the UK, between March 2020 and March 2021, in assessing the UK government’s performance. Different arguments were made for opposite conclusions, favouring either strict and prolonged lockdowns or, on the contrary, a speedy exit from lockdown and a resumption of normal life. From the point of view of argumentation theory, the empirical data suggests that what is being balanced or weighed together in pro/con argumentation by two opposite parties are not as much the costs and benefits of one’s own proposal, but the costs of one proposal against the costs of its alternative (a “cost-cost” analysis). Rather than defending their own proposal by arguing that the benefits outweigh the costs, each side is criticizing the opponent’s proposal by claiming that the costs of their proposal are more unacceptable than the costs of their own. An implicit minimax strategy (minimize costs in a worst-case scenario) was applied in different ways, depending on how the consequences were assessed, and how this assessment changed over time. The debate over lockdown illustrated an interesting type of pro/con argument, typical to crisis situations, in which all the intended “benefits” were in fact avoided “costs”, and contrasted a medical/epidemiological perspective with a political perspective on the best course of action.