The Overton Window is the term used to define the range of ideas that the public are currently willing to accept form part of the acceptable politcial discourse. It is then, in effect, the prevailing dominant narrative around which all debate is focussed.
From 1945 until the mid to late 1970s the Overton Window focussed on the welfare state and the role of government in delivering well being.
From 1980 that all changed: the focus has been on the individual, markets and the choices that we can, supposedly, all make for ourselves. The role of government disappeared from debate, except to note that, as far as possible, it has none.
I summarise, of course, but the point is that the Overton Window does not shift that often. And the question right now is whether or not it is moving again, after a period of more than thirty years in its current location.
My suspicion is that it very definitely is. I will ignore all the easy comments that might be made about May's speech yesterday. There are just two key points to actually make. The first is that she was bereft of any real ideas. The second is that the two proposals she did make were for more social housing and an energy bill cap, both of which were lifted straight from Labour.
I'll ignore for now that the number of new houses to be built is so small the impact on the housing crisis will be imperceptible. I'll just note that this policy makes clear that there is such a thing as market failure. And then note that the suggestion of a tariff cap for energy bills reconfirms that point.
You can talk about free markets for as long as you like, even if there are no such things. But when your two key policy proposals address market failures you know the message is not working. And when the solutions you present look like sticking plasters, because that is exactly what they are, then you know you have run out of road and it's not the message but the whole political narrative that has to change.
As many will be aware, I am not yet sure that Labour knows how to exploit this to the full as yet. That's not surprising. It just lost an election. It should be on the back foot. It still has new policy to deliver. And it has to make sure that whatever that might be is within the constraints of the new Overton Window, which will not be as left wing as some might wish, like it or not. That is why, as I have urged, it has to embrace the role of the private sector within the economy as part of what it talks about or many will be alienated just when they were looking for a new political direction.
But there are ideas out there. Closing the tax gap as a mechanism for addressing austerity remains a plausible narrative.
So is the Green New Deal, with its focus on housebuilding, new infrastructure, energy reform and much else
And so is People's QE.
Alongside selective nationalisation.
Whilst it should not be forgotten how vital key services - education, health, social care - are to well being.
There is a real chance of a change now. It's long overdue. I am sincerely hoping it might happen, and that the F's departure yesterday was a message to the old order, after all.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
All I foresee is the tories offering what some call ‘socialist light’ fail to get the votes and in the process in order to ‘pay’ for these things go after their core vote. Which begs the question rhetorical question why? If didn’t know better the tories actually want corbyn in power so they can show to the effect how ‘ Inept/useless the far left are etc, same could be said for them though.. The election campaign was curious how bad it was, how everything was set up to make their core vote not want to vote for them, then as with many things politicians try and ‘prevent’ and the opposite happens to top it off they banging on about a coaltion of chaos, yet very nearly got that where labour would have had to have a coalition with Lib Dems/SNP/Plaid etc which given their eu positions would have them in a fix. So I am at least musing they are deliberately trying to lose if you ask me
Richard, you say of Labour that “… it has to embrace the role of the private sector within the economy as part of what it talks about.” I assume that you mean that they should talk about it more, because there was nothing I heard from the LP conference, nor in the manifesto, which suggests that Labour does not recognise the role of the private sector within the economy.
But it needs to be said because people have not heard it
Indeed, because otherwise the tories get away with the nonsense about Corbyn and failed communist states.
I couldn’t have told you it was called the ‘Overton Window’, but Noam Chomsky… (his ‘Understanding Power’ is a must read and has available online a vast catalogue of references for people who like ‘authorities’ to quote)… Chomsky explains very lucidly the power of controlling the agenda in such a way that discussion excludes some options as ‘unsayable’ because they are deemed outside the parameters.
It’s a trick used in public inquiries judicial revues (sic) etc. If set up carefully the possibility of correctly apportioning blame or guilt is excluded by the terms of reference. A classic example was the consultation into the siting of a nuclear waste ‘dump’ in West Cumbria. Consideration of the suitability of the underlying geology was verboten. Yet if the geology was unsuitable all the rest of the discussion was utterly pointless (and a vastly expensive waste of time)
There is no doubt the Overton Window is shifting about presently. TINA is looking terminally ill.
Re Theresa May’s speech I thought it was very good, as a speech – viewed as a form of entertainment – far from the disaster the media would have us believe. My difficulty with it is purely in terms of content. She describes a landscape I don’t recognise and future outcomes which even if she is sincere about wishing them, she simply cannot deliver. The power brokers behind her podium will not allow it. Their agenda is quite different.
May describes the Big Rock Candy Mountain with no route map. A pretty concoction of fantasy. Her audience loved it.
Oh yes its moved. But whether Labour are up to making the most of the shift is really the question for the next 6-18 months.
The Tories are obviously in disarray with a fatally undermined leader. They face difficulties from many quarters, notably Brexit which they show every sign of making a gigantic cock up over.
However, the opposition have to show their mettle now and make the running. The opportunity is very definitely there.
Steve H,
I share your doubts about Labour’s ability to grasp the opportunity and present and apply (given the chance) the necessary radical agenda.
Refusing to get with the Compass ‘Progressive Alliance’, which was a gift declined, does not augur well. They gave back the keys of No10 to May. Even though the electorate resoundingly rejected her request for a mandate to negotiate the terms of Brexit she still managed to cling on.
Corbyn and McDonnell need to review their attitude to the Scottish political landscape so it is line with reality. The East Lothian factor doesn’t play for them any longer.
You cannot legislate for stupidity, but people won’t vote for it either. Unless they are Tory voters of course. ( Sorry, cheap shot, but I couldn’t resist.)
May’s speech was desperate. Not because of what happened.
I mean, since when has there been a concept of a ‘British dream’ for goodness sake? That’s the first I have heard it said. Using concepts like that is really scraping the bottom of the speech writing barrel.
I see a problem too facing Labour.
I agree that a mixed economy is best – both private and public sectors working together (and that is actually how a good economy works and has continued to try to work since the posh vandals Osbourne and Cameron came in 2010 with their wrecking ball).
But the private sector is where it can all unravel. It must be a private sector that turns its back on employment practices such as zero hours contracts, better pensions and not working with Unions.
A Labour government blind to and even encouraging the private sector to treat its staff (who are voters remember) like merde will not last long. Private sector workers being treated worse than public sector ones is unsustainable and creates a poison that can be fed into the political economy to level employment rights and pay down and not up as we have seen.
Labour may indeed renationalise the utilities and improve services, prices and employment practices but what of the airline industry or telecoms?
A country made up of two workforces – one looked after and treated well – the other much further behind – needs to be avoided. Nationalising everything will not be the answer.
Sound employment and investment law will be the answer. We need investment law in particular that suits us – not America.
Pilgrim, my dear Chap(?)
The concept of ‘the Great British Dream’ is a well established political credo in the land where the lemonade springs and the bluebird sings…… I thought she was lovely. She’d be a shoo-in at the Bridge Inn at Santon Bridge. (She’d have to edit heavily though – contestants are given a time limit and it’s well less than an hour.) http://www.santonbridgeinn.com/
“Nationalising everything will not be the answer.” I don’t believe any sane person contests that.
There is an oft used idiom about the goalposts having been moved in politics, but the football analogy is better used by saying that the goalposts are still in the same spot, but the groundsman has painted the centre line and circle quite a way over to the right. In fact so far over that it is practically touching the penalty area on that side of the pitch leaving wide open spaces on the left. OK, it’s not as pithy, but I prefer it. There is a piece by Larry Elliot in the Guardian today and it discusses the changing attitudes of the public, particularly with respect to a poll carried out by Legatum (a free market thinktank apparently):
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/05/labour-opportunities-tories-radical-change-corbyn-marxist-throwback
It threw up nuggets such as the public now wanting nationalisation of the railways and some public services, higher taxes to provide for the NHS, curbs on excessive CEO pay etc. It also showed that the public still want the debt paying down. We really do need Economics 101 in our schools. Brexit, of course, has changed many many things and I suppose it is difficult to see beyond it at the moment. The Tories are a dying party. Sadly they will do a lot of damage as they retreat to nothingness. The answer does lie to the left – that is the change that many people are willing to accept – but I still believe that it requires a slow dismantling of neoliberalism and a global movement to do so. Corbyn to me still represents revolution and his premiership following a hard Brexit, will lead to a descent of Britain to the parochial and insignificant. It would be sad to see from outside, but it’s terrifying from within.
Even more fundamental is understanding human beings’ psychological motivations as a species. The Overton Window shifts because we don’t understand them!
Schofield,
“Even more fundamental is understanding human beings’ psychological motivations as a species. The Overton Window shifts because we don’t understand them!”
Er Whoops.
Sorry you can’t have this.
You need to read ‘The Selfish Gene’ again. (Whadda ya mean ya ain’t reddit?)
Margaret Thatcher came out with the (in)famous line about there being no such thing as society and wasn’t entirely wrong . The line is usually taken out of context too (or devoid of context).
There is no such thing as collective species consciousness. None of it works on a species level. It’s about individuals. Sure there’s some collaborative stuff going on, and altruism is selected for when it prospers. ( the despised Matt Ridley of Northern Rock infamy covers this lucidly in ‘The Origins of Virtue’)
What is incredibly difficult is to discuss evolution in the passive voice, where it belongs. Even people who understand evolution as a process at some stage will slip into the active voice and tell you that the flower mimics the sexy behind of the female bee to encourage pollination by some randy passer by (or passer bee) as if there were some deliberation in the way the flower grows.
(Actually the bee analogy doesn’t quite work there, because the worker bees are female so I’m not sure what the motivation is) It’s all passive. Survival and procreation by default.
In that sense the Overton Window doesn’t move at all. We just see different things through it. And when enough of us see the same things and don’t like the look of them we (individually) chose to look for something ….better….more interesting.
It’s our ego that says the window moved, because it’s a well known fact that the world revolves around us. In reality we have merely changed our viewpoint. When enough people concur the world changes or at least appears to.
And if you think that’s bollox, I would say so is your comment, and begrudgingly admit that your contribution is more succinct. Good job this is online or I’d have to beat myself up about wasting paper:)
I confess I lost you….
Stemfr,
“……but the football analogy is better used by saying …..”
can’t argue with your analogy, but it understates the case. It’s not just the lines that are moved about, it goes much deeper than that because in premiership and international football we take for granted the pitch is level. This certainly isn’t always the case in lower leagues which is one reason why teams change ends at half time. The other reason relates to wind direction (somewhat more fickle – always go with the wind in the first half if you win the toss because it might change)
Your analogy understates because there is no half time in the game of economic privilege. (No oranges therefore either) The wealthy and influential play always with the wind at their back, always downslope and they ‘own’ the referee and line judges. They also write the rule book.
Fancy a game? No neither do I.
What if just for a moment (or more) we considered the possibility that the “Overton Window” is bullshit.
Lets consider the last 3 major political events (major in news terms), the US presidential election, Brexit and Corbyn’s consolidation of the Labor leadership (with the biggest increase in vote share since 1945).
The outcome in all 3 cases was unexpected (to put it mildly). Unexpected in Overton Window terms, not expected by the technocrat expert class that invented the Overton Window and continued to define possibility within those terms, nor expected by the educated class (like us) that often remain dumb enough to continue believing the ‘experts’ when they have repeatedly got it wrong.
For every part of the Overton Window concept that has truth there as least one other part that is crap. It is a self-reinforcing instrument of oppression and control. It imposes limits and attributes them to others, to “the public”
I am reminded of all the Blairites and other ‘centrists’ that tried to tell us what was and wasn’t “electable” They weren’t talking about what they believed in but what the experts decided the public would accept. Well the public has apparently kicked their backsides righteously and repeatedly.
Some people in public life hold focus groups, define their limitations and follow, others lead and create new possibilities. If there ever was a real Overton Window it probably started crumbling, slowly in 2008, and it hasn’t shifted, its broken beyond repair and for useful purposes may as well not exist.
You make good points
“I am reminded of all the Blairites and other ‘centrists’ that tried to tell us what was and wasn’t “electable” They weren’t talking about what they believed in but what the experts decided the public would accept. Well the public has apparently kicked their backsides righteously and repeatedly.”
Yes but you have to ask what were their psychological motivations for doing so; that they no longer accept the Neo-Liberal line that as a species we’re predominantly motivated by selfishness? What in other words is the point of even talking about an Overton Window if its all settled that we are predominantly driven by selfishness?
Schofield,
The idea that selfishness benefits society generally or “that there is no society”, has worn out, and not just that but all the other stupid baggage that goes with it. Neoliberalism was never a grass roots movement. It was a concensus among elites reinforced by lack of choice and restrictions that were established through the bipartisanship of the two major parties, as well as media compliance and academic support (TINA, if you want to call it that).
The views of the expert class were then gallingly ascribed to the public. But the trick was bound to wear off and the public are now tired of being told what they think. Their rebellion may be misdirected in some ways and not as yet articulate but it is also promising and anything but surprising. The old ‘Overton Window’ perspective no longer applies. Everyone that looks through that window keeps getting it wrong.
“The old ‘Overton Window’ perspective no longer applies.”
But if it’s a shift from the fundamental idiotic premise Neo-Liberalism is based on that human beings are primarily selfish or asocial (idiotic because human society couldn’t satisfactorily reproduce on this basis or government work with all members of government acting entirely in their own individual selfish interest) towards the understanding human beings are primarily cooperative with good empathy and sympathy for others given good and prosocial caregiving as infants as well as self-interested (the necessary seeking motivation) then the Overton Window analogy or perspective still applies. In other words it’s your view and mine that there is a fundamental shift in values away from Neo-Liberalism albeit few understand where the psychological motivation for it is coming from.
A couple of years ago I suggested in this blog that Labour and the country needed Corbyn’s quiet dignity and politics, but I was told off as talking rubbish. Mainly, I think, because it smacked too much of IDS’ quiet man. One that none of us thought any good. Last year I suggested that even though I voted remain, I thought Corbyn was right about the EU being a neo-liberal club captured by big business and therefore had failed in its original conception. I may not have phrased it in quite this way, but that is basicly what I was saying. Recent events in the EU, Macron (neo-lib ex banker), the rise of Le Pen, Germany’s neo Nazi party gaining so many seats, Merkel being a neo-liberal. And now Spain’s viscious crackdown on the people of Catalan who want, and have always wanted independance. All of this has led me to believe that I was on the right track. Today while reading on other subjects I found this:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/john-weeks/The-irony-of-Brexit-as-the-EU-lurches-right-catalonia-afd-merkel
Yanis Varoufakis was saying the same thing last year and this:
https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2017/02/07/the-establishment-is-in-denial-interviewed-by-der-freitag-english-text/
Of course you could argue that Varoufakis has skin in the game because of what the EU and Troika have been doing to Greece, but that would not be the whole story.
It would appear that I’m not the only one worried about the direction of the EU. The lack of support for the Catalan people appears to back up my fears that the EU has lost its way. The dream of a United Nations who will never go to war again may well be over, but like neo-liberlism, may take some time to fizzle out.
@Claire,
You may be interested to read Craig Murray’s recent blog posts regarding Catalonia, the EU Commision’s response to the referendum, and Murray’s personal epiphany regarding the EU, and Britain’s membership of it.
I’m afraid that I have no truck with the Catalans.
Any movement in Europe at the moment talking about breaking away from anything is bad news as far as I am concerned. Nationalism has to be handled carefully especially as the world economy is till trying to recover from 2008 (and may indeed be on the precipice of another crash even as I write).
As for the Overton Window – I’m a bit sceptical to be honest. You see – not everyone votes so I feel that it is hard to say that such a step change in people’s attitudes exists.
I would also question the role of the media and education in people’s changes of attitude. The Overton Window suggests that people just change without questioning why or anything about the quality of information presented to the public.
People’s attitudes can change because they have been lied to enough times to believe something that does not actually work.
The public’s realisation of the untruth can be delayed however by clever ways of putting them off the scent – national sporting events, made up conflicts with political opponents or finding some one else to blame.
The Tories do this all of the time of course.
BTW in my post of the private sector I meant to say that it should be made to provide better pensions for its workers.
If we are to talk about a shift in the window, then there is a darker side we should recognise rather than just the bits we might like. It may we’ll be that ideas such as nationalisation and a rolling back of ‘free markets’ is now an acceptable narrative. However, we should perhaps recognise that it has also become acceptable to blame others for the country’s problems, in particular migrants of all origins. Xenophobia and indeed out and out racism have become common patterns of behaviour, edging into acceptability.
Many, perhaps most of those who voted for Brexit and/or BluKIP would not be engaged in the erudite debate in these columns. They are thinking that the problems are all caused by migrants and the EU who allow them to come here.
BluKIP have been happy to stir up that sentiment as a way of getting a vote that will allow them to impose a far more radical and neo-liberal state than anything we’ve seen before. Failures and set backs will continue to be blamed on ‘others’.
Just as Corbyns Labour have somewhat ducked the Brexit debate, they’ve done the same on migrants (or should we say European expats). The two issues are linked.
Robin,
Unrestrained capitalism under attack and “ugly side” nationalists exploit the public’s resentment of ‘globalisation’.
For better and worse its much like the 1930’s.
Absolutely – it’s horribly similar and you’d think the older generation might remember that history (I’m 68…). The older generation of politicians, left and right, were shaped by it.
I was at a museum in the Ardennes this year, Battle of the Bulge country, which had a big section on the 30s and causes of WWII. My friend who I was with and I had exactly this discussion.
Let’s hope we can get to something like the post- war Labour government without needing a war first. Though having said all that, we have a bunch of new challenges (technology and demographics just as a start) so just polishing up the old models is not enough.
Corbyn could do no better than say ‘ There is such a thing as society and we are all part of it .’ A society is a body with all its constituent parts playing their part even if I don’t like some of them . Everyday people come to my house and my business to perform tasks I can’t do . I happen to be the ‘ boss ‘ and as such I have a particular role and tasks to perform , but it doesn’t make the tasks performed by ANY of my employees less valuable . In fact one of my tasks as a boss is to underpin my employees , not to overlord them . My comfortable life depends upon them everyday and I trust I pay them enough to think that I am not enjoying my lifestyle at their expense. I am not describing some sort of nirvana just an everyday family and working environment that is functional which our society is not . I come across many such ‘ capitalist ‘ enterprises all of which have to work within a regulatory framework of one sort or another and yes , sometimes parts of some of these regulations appear irksome , but personally I would much rather have them than not have them . So making a profit is not in itself an issue and Corbyn could say that , but how that profit is made could be and for those long in the tooth maybe a term other than nationalisation could be invented for those services we all rely upon and for which a pretend market has been created ( backed by government guarantee ) , but for which a large number of the population believe they are paying too much. But the big issue as I see it is how to explain the question of the ‘ affordability ‘ of ‘ government programmes ‘ and that is where Corbyn is going to have to come clean and explain in words of one syllable how money is created and the part that tax plays and ‘ there lies the rub ‘ does he have the knowledge and the guts to do so.
I have run businesses and am proud to have done so and to do so
It is time we appreciated that doing so is an essential and valued part of the economy we need
Just as excellent government services are
Competitive private enterprise is part of democracy you get to pick the goods and services with the standards and price you want to pay to meet your needs. When there’s a monopoly or quasi-monopoly demand situation to meet important needs (such as a roof over your, head, energy to keep warm, and healthcare to keep you functioning optimally, for example) the situation is altogether different because affordability across the whole of a society is a fundamental necessity. Exploitation of these monopolies to jack up prices is therefore not tolerable. Other means have to be found to simultaneously constrain exploitation whilst maximising efficiency of production and service delivery.
Thank you John – very well put. I’ve worked in and with plenty of organisations who would reflect what you describe. I’ve also worked with some disgraceful ones, funnily enough, disproportionately in the City. Organisations, especially as they get larger, are societies in their own right with cultures, values, politics and the rest. After all they are just a bunch of human beings, subject to the same weaknesses and vices. I could say the same about public sector organisations I’ve worked with…
Assuming that we are talking about a mixed economy, Corbyn and McDonnell have shown little sign of grasping the potentially positive contributions of business, only the negative. I fear that is the world and ideology they have grown up in, one that is closer to the Democratic Socialism of East Germany than the Social Democracy of say Scandinavia.