Margaret Thatcher had many legacies, one of which was the creation of a new form of political marketing. The rise of the focus group is one of her more dubious achievements. That is because what large party politics is now very largely about is the re-amplification of the messages received from those groups, many of which are deeply selfish and insensitive to community need precisely because of the way in which they focus upon the individuals wants and desires.
This is not the moment to go back to the dogmatic politics of the pre-Thatcher era, but it is the moment to rediscover principles and the merits of political leadership that takes people to a better place that they had not previously imagined. I explain this in more depth in this video.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
It should be fairly obvious to perceptive people that the over-promotion of market fundamentalism by Libertarians or quasi-Libertarians leads to a sub-message that it’s OK to be sociopathic in your attitude to others. This in turn has now led to the following:-
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/us-police-monitoring-3-terrifying-plots-to-overthrow-government_uk_5ffd4d32c5b63642b6febb74
A commentator called Jolene demonstrated that sociopathy here quite well this morning
As someone who has ran a large amount residents meetings and tenant groups in housing over the years I’m of the opinion myself that a certain type of person is drawn to focus groups and these people are mostly very opinionated.
Focus groups are OK when they literally focus on a topic – say about the quality of a service or a problem with something tangible. And if the members of the focus group have a common experience where a service provider can learn and improve something.
But when they are used in the way you point out above, they just seem to lose grip with reality and become arenas for personal opinions of which the the focus group process pushes to the front (‘re-amplify’ as you say). I’ve also seen focus groups reject sound and innovative proposals to deal with common problems like rent arrears.
However, I think the other cynical way in which focus groups are abused both by service providers and political parties is that they are used to control public opinion during change – usually when the change is brought about budgets being cut. They are used to swerve around such issues or divert attention and create a ‘false consciousness’ to creep in that focus on more individual needs.
This false consciousness is then introduced into policy making.
One of the more infamous examples of this I can think of this is when Clinton was picking up that voters in focus groups didn’t mind the workless having welfare payments but wouldn’t it be great if they were being paid to look for work and prove this was the case. This was eventually introduced here in the UK. In a way the principle is maybe OK, but the way it is administered is simply not on (for example – the job seeker trying to balance paying for rent, debt, bills, and food whilst also paying for expensive public transport)(. And to think that Jobseekers Allowance actually came as a judgement call from people who had comfortable lives on those who did not? Sick!
And of course those managing the focus group process will use the focus group to legitimize whatever course of action that comes out of it.
Focus groups are the start of a production / consumption cycle of opinion
An opinion is found
It is extrapolated
Then manipulated
And then sold back as policy
The end result is poipulism
And after that fascism
Yes- then we agree don’t we?
What was something created by the market to focus on successfully selling a product has become a weapon of selling mass distraction for political purposes.
Used in this way, focus groups make unreason sovereign.
I, too, bemoan the lack of principle and leadership in our major political parties. The question is – are the politicians responding to the way we are? Or, have be become the way we are because our leaders have encouraged it?
I suspect the rise of “individualism” is bigger than party politics and reflects many, many things. For example, geographical mobility, better communications technology, decline in religious faith. In short, the things (good and bad) that bound us together have fallen away and the result is “individualism” (or, let’s be clear, “selfishness”).
If we lay our own failings at the door of politicians then we delude ourselves…… and change becomes impossible.
Having said that, I will make two further points.
First, the pandemic has shown our capacity for selfISHness and selfLESSness. All of us have both within us and it IS the job of leadership to encourage the latter.
Second, central to any improvement is proportional representation. This is the key to encouraging “principles based” political parties. A Game Theorist will tell you that a FPTP system will always evolve into a two party system with both parties “triangulating” to what the “average voter” says they want. Both Labour and Conservative Parties are unhappy coalitions thrown together by the desire for power; in a sensible system they would break up and then we would see whether (for example) Johnson has a mandate.
Many, many years ago (possibly 40 or more) I saw a TV documentary about a firm who thought it would be a good idea to develop a savoury filled ‘cream horn’ type product. Each stage was tried with focus groups. I don’t remember the exact details, but the very first trial product, basically a ‘cream horn with a savoury filling, was rejected by the groups because it was too messy to eat. After a series of modifications, influenced by the group comments, they ended up with something so revoltingly unappealing that no-one in their right minds would consider buying it, let alone eating it. It was an interesting demonstration of where group thinking led…
(I am slightly cheered to note, though, when I was seeing if I could find any reference to this on the internet, my search results were pages and pages of savoury cream horn recipes…)
The extraordinary things about Thatcher is that her supporters and critics both attribute things to her that she never even came close to achieving. Thatcherism itself was a myth. Here again, the rise of focus groups is one of her achievements (dubious or otherwise) from the red corner while the blue corner argues, “Her rejection of consensus is seen as a reflection of her leadership and her ability to stand by principles, unlike the modern day political leaders driven by opinion polls and focus groups.”
Imagine if she had acheived even a quarter of the things that folk credit it her for….
@ Chris
The principles of ignorance like “government has no money of its own” you mean which has caused so much damage to British people for the last forty years?
Just to add – the biggest and hardest to control focus group is social media. I’m sorry but it has to be said.
And we still need to come to terms with it.
What is social media but a series of focus groups writ large?
Really?
Time runs out for an equitable outcome that would keep huge swathes of the working class employed. We have been warned of the impact on jobs by the automation of manufacturing which day by day chips away work by the hourly paid.
Figures of the loss of 1.5 billion automated jobs by 2028 have been used by speakers to large corporations. For all we know this awful stage through which we now pass is just the thin edge of the wedge which that is struck by the corporatists. AI may prove to be just the last nail in the coffin of another billion workers.