Most people are familiar with who are called placebo effects.
Fewer are familiar with the nocebo effects. These can be described in this way:
The nocebo effect is the opposite of the placebo effect. It describes a situation where a negative outcome occurs due to a belief that the intervention will cause harm.
Why do they come to mind? Mainly because of Labour's fearful and very obviously frightened approach to policy making. It would seem that Labour believes that anything anyone vaguely left of centre might think to be of benefit will cause harm. They suffer from a profound version of the nocebo effect, in other words.
As example, investing £28 billion in the infrastructure required to manage climate change will clearly not do harm. But Labour believes it will.
Likewise, tax increases on those most able to pay them, matched by spending increases or reduced tax or increased benefits for those least well off would clearly do good. But Labour has persuaded itself that none of these things should happen because contrary to all the evidence they think they are harmful.
As the same paper that I note above also suggests:
patients with anxiety and depression, those with a pessimistic outlook and strongly influenced by their environment may need more careful counselling to avoid inadvertent initiation of the nocebo effect.
Labour is undoubtedly anxious. It also hasa deeply pessimistic outlook. They are also heavily influenced by a Tory environment. Is that what they are so subject to nocebo effects?
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:
The Labour leadership appear to think that promising to do anything that could be criticised by their political opponents or the press will be harmful to their electoral prospects.
It would be interesting to see a thorough analysis of every government measure that they have opposed over the last 14 or even 5 years to see which they still intend to change and which they have now tacitly accepted.
We have reached the point where Labour appear to have no plans or principles, other then getting elected. What specific things are they actually going to do, and why would that be a good thing?
Andrew, what’s more important is that Starmer was elected on ten principles, following his ‘friend’ Corbyn, and has now reneged on all ten of them. That’s in four years.
I notice there are SDP candidates for the next election already.
There’s a big difference between the Social Democratic Party and democratic socialists.
We need the latter, not the former.
I am a social democrat
Have you read the SDP manifesto, Richard?
Do you believe in their immigration policies?
https://sdp.org.uk/policies/immigration/
“We will withdraw from the 1951 UN refugee convention, the ECHR and all other international instruments which deny UK border sovereignty. We will promote a new set of international agreements on refugee rights which are fit for purpose, protect genuine refugees and do not facilitate people trafficking and illegality.
We will reduce net migration to 50,000 per annum and promote a generation long ‘mass immigration pause’ in the interests of integration and social cohesion. Agreements between key strategic partners may result in selective exemptions if clearly in the national interest.
All unsolicited asylum applications via breaches of the UK border will be declined. They will result in immediate repatriation or detention offshore within British Overseas Territories until repatriation can be arranged. The UK will contribute to humanitarian resettlement of genuine refugees by offering 20,000 refugee visas annually to carefully vetted families with children in UN refugee camps or near major conflict zones.”
That’s just part of it.
Do you want to carry an NI ID card to prove you are entitled to health services?
I have nothing to do with then ir support then in any way.
But I am a social democrat.
I have never been a socialist.
My point was about your saying we do not need social democrats. Actually, they are what we need.
I’m a social democrat and not a socialist. I didn’t have much time for Corbyn during his tenure for example. One of the few people I care to listen now in Labour is Clive Lewis. But Starmer isn’t a social democrat. He’s so much to the right of young Blair (who wasn’t that much of a social democrat anyway) that it’s unbelievable for example. Even older Blair was to the left of him.
The way Starmer treats his words and promises – I could only at the moment describe him as Labour’s Boris Johnson (and even Johnson under the influence of certain people in his group was on some topics to the left of Starmer). And Starmer’s fate is, I think, going to be similar to Johnson’s – quick sugar-rush after the inevitable landslide and even quicker decline. The question is – what comes afterwards?
There is not a hint of social democracy in Labour now
Just make sure you don’t vote for anyone who calls him or herself a member of the SDP. That’s what you will be voting for.
The SDP and Reform parties agreed to a pact less than two years ago.
How many candidates do they have?
If they got 200 votes per constituency I would be amazed
Here’s a map from Nowcast.
https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast
Ely and South Cambridgeshire will be stuck with Lucy Frazer, who is going to continue. The difference between tory and Libdem is less than 1%. However Reform, which still has a pact with SDP as far as I can tell, will get 10% of the vote.
I don’t have your faith on forecasts
I think Frazer might go
I don’t necessarily have faith in forecasts. I hope you are right about Frazer.
However, what I do think is that if people who care about politics and who represents us know something that others do not, it could be our duty to explain to others what the results of not voting or voting for the wrong party could mean.
I know people who live in Ely, and they are socialists. They are not sure who to vote for at the moment, except it won’t be for Frazer or Reform.
A different forecast I saw said that the difference between tory, labour and libdems was less than 1%. 29% for tories, then 28.5 and 28.1.
So any of the three could take it if even the independents and greens vote for the same party.
So do you decide to try and persuade people or not? Just in case?
I’m pleased I don’t have the same quandary. Over 55% of the voters in my constituency are going to vote labour, so I can vote green without affecting the overall vote.
Peterborough should be interesting, too.
I am not campaigning
Agreed – an interesting way of looking at it.
Labour’s idea of supermarket ‘piling it high and selling it cheap’ tactics – which comes across to me in that they seem to think that they can just increase the volume of taxation as the answer instead of the tax rates by letting markets ‘rip’ – is one of the most potentially stupid polices I’ve ever seen.
Because there doe not seem to be an interest in risk in the financial sector – Reeves has helped to blindside Starmer for sure.
And the idea that this might deal with inequality by raising inequality!!!
Really?!!
All I see is the Establishment’s policy making here – it’s so fitting of them. But now we know who Starmer’s daddy really is – and he ain’t no tool maker.
In fact – can someone tell me how different this is to Truss & Co in its effects? This is just a slo-mo version of her to be honest.
But that has been Labour since Blair – they are going to wash their hands of us just like the Tories – but they’ll do it more slowly and even feel a little guilt.
Hobsons choice or what at the next election?
Labour is so keen to get large donations from big businesses and million/billionaires, it has completely forgotten about the fate of ordinary people let alone their own members, that they are hell-bent on pursuing Tory austerity so the fat cat funds keep rolling in. To hell with the NHS, social care,climate……………..
I despair! Labour is currently streets ahead purely for not being called the Tory Party, yet Starmer tosses principles and policies overboard like unwanted ballast that might sink the boat.
What will people be voting for? The hope that he will find a backbone once in office and discover socialism, or even a shadow of Labour past? Not much hope of that.
My one hope is that my fellow Scots are not seduced into thinking that the British Labour in Scotland branch office will somehow be allowed to have higher ideals. Sarwar is a mere cypher.
Proverbs 29.18
Where there is no vision, people perish.
Or today, where there is no vision, nothing much gets done.
This looks like it might be relevant:
Keynesian expectations, epistemic authority and pluralism in economics: placebo and nocebo effects in normal and abnormal times
Ellen D. Russell, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Volume 47, Issue 2, March 2023, Pages 373–391, 29 Mar 2023
Unfortunately only an abstract is available as knowledge is considered worthy of profiting
https://academic.oup.com/cje/article-abstract/47/2/373/7093012?redirectedFrom=fulltext
If I get time I will read it
I think a reading of Eagleton’s book ‘The Starmer Project’ suggests a trajectory similar to all his career, start centre, veer right, with suggestion he is ‘guided’ by external forces. Eagleton suggests Starmer is a pawn of some sort; I prefer a part of an obscured group whose first objective (the Party coup) has been hugely successful thanks to the antisemitism smear neutralising effective opposition to the longstanding Blairite machine. The shape of the future (after gaining power nationally, the second objective) is also Blairite: mildly socially liberal, economically neoliberal.
https://jamiedriscoll.co.uk/news/does-it-have-to-be-higher-taxes-or-more-borrowing/
I think labour might regret getting rid of Jamie Driscoll.
Keynesian type MULTIPLIER effects?
£1 spent and £3 back to the Treasury
Demonstration it works. Starmer should be pointing it out to Sunak.
Thanks for the link. The bit of uplift we all need. I doubt, though, that Labour will regret getting rid of him – he seems to be exactly the kind of clear-thinking person that Labour cannot tolerate.
The Nu-Renege Party very definitely subject to nocebo effects!
Labour thinks it is “harmful”. Harmful in the proper sense…. or merely harmful to their electoral chances? If the former then we are in real trouble.
It is easy to despair with Labour… but the fact is that they are the only alternative to a Tory government. So, the aim is surely to keep pushing progressive ideas and hope that once they have their feet under the table Labour will tack left.
Absurdly optimistic? Possibly… but I am. (Then again, I am listening to the cricket and still hoping so I may not be realistic!)
That match looks lost to me, Stokes or not
What I don’t understand about Labour’s ‘Green Plan’ (or whatever the official name is). It really is an industrial strategy. UK needs it. Industry needs it and mostly wants it. Industry itself knows it needs to transition to low-carbon to stay competitive. Yes – it will cost some (quite a lot – but in a grand scheme of things not that much) money. But it has to be done. And it will bring money back.
Why did Labour insist on this ‘green’ in the name if they knew this leaves them exposed to the attack from the far-right Tory media (and as it seems this is their biggest concern regarding everything). Why didn’t they just call it a part of their industrial strategy? Now it looks like they just couldn’t wait to get rid of it. And it’s bad – for everyone really – including the economy.
Considering the damage this will do to Scotland, I hope at least SNP use this as much as possible.
I hope they will
But I am seeing little initiative from the SNP. They too live in fear of economics
Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer sort of warns Labour about their love in with the City – but sort of gives them the benefit of some of the doubt – still committed to ending zero hours contracts etc.
But he notes ——- AstraZeneca, Barclays, HSBC, Goldman Sachs, Google, Legal & General and Shell etc etc all lavishing money on Labour – they could well become dependent – they are not interested in building their membership income.
I have not read him yet – been spotting scaup
But that sounds like Rawnsley
It’s worth pointing out that the ‘ban’ on Zero-Hours comes with the caveat that there is an exception for where “the employee accepts the flexibility of a ZHC”.
What you can expect of that is that every employee that doesn’t “accept the flexibility” might suddenly find the job offer rescinded.
You’re too kind to them Richard.
They’re not fearful of doing the right thing thing, they’re just not allowed to even offer it by their donors who have bought the party and its MP’s wholesale.
This seems like a good time to break the Labour/Tory duopoly.
“You spend £28bn on infrastructure and you are £28bn wealthier.”
No, you’re £28 billion wealthier if the infrastructure you build is worth the £28 billion you’ve just spent on building that infrastructure.
Spending £100 billion on HS2 hasn’t made us £100 billion wealthier. Not even when trying to include the wider societal benefits – for HS2 fails its cost benefit analysis even at the original price.
You just can’t trust the State and its Politicians
So we need better politicians
I don’t see any private developer stepping in to create HS2…
Seriously speaking, the reason HS2’s costs ballooned was the spaghetti bowl of outsourcing and consultancy firms who all wanted to eat up some profit, because neoliberals decided that government doesn’t need to retain personel who know how to build stuff and should rent them back from the private sector when needed. On top of that, deciding to turn what could’ve been fine over-ground track into underground track in the name of the property rights of a bunch of NIMBYs.
We’re not £100 billion better from spending £100 billion on HS2 beecause HS2 was never a project that was intended to provide a needed otcome. So there has been no siciuetal benefit and probably never would have been. However, a number of organisations and individuals are a lot wealthier because of the money they received from the project. I don’t know what the increased government take of income tax, NI, VAT and corporation tax has been, but it will have increased.
https://weownit.org.uk/our-public-services/railways
No doubt you’ve seen Will Hutton’s piece on a similar theme (concluding sentence, ‘…Labour should have more confidence. We can’t go on like this.’ ), while also setting it in the context of local government in the same vein as you and various others discussed here recently.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/04/tories-starved-councils-thinking-no-one-cared-now-bust-and-we-care-very-much
You wrote about cowardly politicians many years ago, Richard, but by god, this lot are far worse than anything I imagined we’d ever end up with.
I have read Hutton this morning and broadly agree with him
I agree with you too: this lot are much worse than anything I imagined
I’d say it’s more an ideological beleif that government intervention makes things worse, as neoliberalism likes to claim.
A softer version of Javier Millei’s claim that Market Failure doesn’t exist and is only ever a product of Government Failure.
Similarly, they have an ideological beleif in the illigetemacy of left-wing politics. You can see this in the constant talk of “Power, not Protest” or “Serious politics, not student politics”/”The adults are back in the room”. Also see Peter Mandelson on Times Radio; he was certain that ‘Corbynites’ were fundamentally unelectable, which is why him and his goons are currently Pasokifying the party.
Though one can’t rule out the enviromental factors of venture capitalist money flooding in as their membership funding collapses.
And “Follow the Money” is especially true of Mandelson’s career and the Tony Blair Institute.
Dropping the £28bn commitment / promise / aspiration / vague intention only serves fossil fuel interests and provides more breathing space for the corporates who want to reduce their risks of stranded capital.
I’m beginning to think that the main reason that Labour shelved virtually every half-decent policy idea is that they are so confident of victory that they don’t need to promise anything at all. Which no doubt suits the establishment interests that they serve.
Of course, not everyone is quite so bullish about a Labour victory. See below:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/30/labour-acts-on-fears-muslims-will-not-vote-for-party-over-gaza-stance
https://youtube.com/shorts/qUJdgK6R1R0?si=jZlfYn4i__lEMbIo
The establishment must be really happy about how easily Starmer has turned the Labour Party into the Nu-Renege Party. Reneging on every decent idea the Labour Party ever stood for. It’s really a hulk of a party now drifting idly on the Sargasso Sea and blown about in the direction of whatever breeze springs up!
It is interesting how you have called yourself a ‘social democrat’ Richard.
Unlike too many in charge of us, I bet you know exactly what that means and I get it and the more I think about it, the more sense it makes.
I note this because I would say that during this last 14-15 years I have arrived at what I would call a somewhat ‘pre- revolutionary state.’
I veer between hatred and reason, never feeling entirely comfortable in either state of mind.
‘Social democrat’. Yes, I like the sound of that.
Thanks
You do know that the social democrats were the gang of four who left the labour party in 1981, Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins, David Owen and Bill Rogers.
They joined the liberal party to become the Liberal Democrats in 1990.
It’s now the party that has made a pact with Reform for this year’s general election.
Why call yourself a social democrat rather than a democratic socialist?
Because it is ridiculous to think that such a rich philosophy belongs to these groups. Suggesting it does is absurd and below the level I expect here.
If you really want to play hard left factionalism do it elsewhere. I have no time for it, nit least because no one is offering socialist ideas in this country: social democracy is what the left has to offer.
I am not playing at all.
How many followers do you have on X?
Have you ever said on there that you are a social democrat?
You tell people not to vote labour or tory because they do not know about the economy.
There is an obvious follow on from there, logically, but it’s okay, I won’t worry you with it.
The number of Twitter followrs I have is pubic knowledge.
Have I ever said I am a social democrat? Yes
Have I ever said I am a socialist? No
Have I always argued for a mixed economy? Yes. There is no alternative.
Have I always demanded that the state and private secxtors each do what they are best at? Of course.
Have I supported the imperative to treat need above wants? Of course. That is how to identify at a practical level a social democrat in a mixed economy – which is the only sort we will ever have, as we will never have a socialist one – and Corbyn and McDonnell got nowhere near promoting socialism, for the record. It could even be said they were poor social democrats.
So what aree you arguing with me about?
And please don’t patronise with ‘smarter than thou’ comments, like your last one. They help no one and just make you look smug.
JenW
Look, I don’t mean to belittle you or your point but isn’t this rather like Python’s ‘The Judean People’s Front’ versus the ‘The People’s Front of Judea’?
It’s a bit silly.
Our politics is in mess. Stand back and think about the words ‘social’ and ‘democrat’ and see if we can live up to those words for once.
Labour – is just resting on its past and has been hollowed out from inside rather like the Tories – both having been taken over by what can only be described as the finance friendly Right.
The Liberal Democrats tie themselves up in knots because they cannot reconcile the individual with the collective because they cannot see the flaws in ‘the rational man’ and like most liberals do not understand money and its effects on rationality.
‘Social Democrat’ is the way to go. I mean, what else do we have? Let’s give it a go.
Fascism? No thanks.
PSR
Not ‘Social Democrat’ the Social Democratic Party has no social democracy to offer. In October 2022, the SDP announced a general election pact with the right-wing populist and Eurosceptic party Reform UK.
We need social democrats.