Too many campaigners talk about what's wrong, but never explain what must change or how it could happen.
Real campaigning means finding solutions: identifying causes, proposing reforms, and then doing the maths on the finances to show how they would work in practice.
In this video, I explain what effective campaigning looks like, why technical detail matters, and why those who want real social and economic justice must deal with funding, finance and resource allocation.
We need movements that create real change, and not just outrage, but without addressing finance, we'll get nowhere.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
I've been talking about campaigning on my Funding the Future blog of late, and one of the key themes that I've been highlighting is that moaning is not the same as campaigning.
I've been campaigning now for over a quarter of a century, and I have a style which I bring to that activity, which is what I call solution-focused. In other words, I will identify a problem; I will work out what the cause of it is; I will work out how we can address that cause; I will suggest a solution to the problem; and I will explain what the outcome that I anticipate is.
But when I look at too many other campaigns, all I see is something happening at stage one. People moan about the fact that something isn't working, and they demand that action be taken, and they claim the fact that it isn't is grossly unfair, but they're not willing to put in the hard graft to explain what the solutions are. And I believe that this is really important because if we are going to change the world, and I want to change the world, we have to do effective campaigning.
So, let's just talk about what I mean by campaigning. Almost everyone here knows I want to change how this world runs. I want to change it so that people on what we might call normal incomes or pensions, and those who need protection, can live well. I think that is possible if we manage the resources that we have available to us. I believe I'm asking for something realistic because this country could meet everyone's needs if it wanted to; the resources are available.
So for me, campaigning is simple: it's about how to work out, how to put the right resources in the right place so that the needs that we can identify are met.
But for most people, that isn't what they're trying to do. I read books and blogs and reports and watch videos, which are strong on analysis of everything that is wrong in the world, and some of these are written by very well-known people. But when it comes to saying, "What are we actually going to do about this?" they fall mysteriously silent.
You've read those types of books. 400 pages of analysis of what has failed, and then 10 pages at the end saying two things. One, here are a few ideas, and they are really very vague, and then "more research is needed." That is not good enough, is my message. Wearing your heart on your sleeve does not mean you've created an effective plan to deliver change. It just means you've had a good moan. Now, maybe you need a good moan, but the world needs something better than that.
I see this now in many NGOs and think tanks. They can say what they don't like endlessly. They can say everything is unfair, and they can say who they think is suffering as a result, and most of the time, their analysis is right. The problem is, they very rarely spell out what must change in any detail and explain how the process of change will really work. In other words, the nitty-gritty is absent.
The problem is that in most cases, they avoid saying what change in behaviour they want. After all, if you want change, you are going to change people's behaviour, the structures around their lives, the way things work, how the money moves. This is something that most campaigners feel desperately uncomfortable with because change is uncomfortable; that's a fact of life. Most of us are very comfortable with things carrying on as they are, especially if we are already comfortable. And most of those who are doing campaigning are, let me be clear, very comfortable as campaigners.
But what you've got to identify is who will be the winners and losers from whatever you demand, and if you duck that question of how change will actually be enforced, as well as put into place, then above all else, you are failing the people who you've identified who need real change to take place so that they can live in comfort as well. You've got to, in other words, address that most uncomfortable of subjects: finance. You've got to talk about funding, finance and its consequences and how you're going to raise it, how you're going to distribute it, and what the outcomes will be. You have to do your maths unless you're in the States, when you have to do the math.
Whichever way you look at it. This requires what I call the solution focus that I adopt. I see the same unfair world as everyone else does on the left.
I see low pay.
I see bank exploitation via high interest rates.
I see landlord power forcing people to live in poverty housing.
I see monopoly abuse.
I see discrimination all around me that is real.
And I'm angry about it, let's be clear. I hope that's obvious. That motivates why I get up in the morning to do this sort of work. I know that there are things to change, and I will moan about them, but I won't end there. What I'm always interested in doing is coming up with a solution.
So, when nearly 25 years ago, at our very first meeting, John Christensen asked me the question, "How do we stop multinational companies tackling tax abuse?" I came up, on the spur of the moment with the idea, which became country-by-country reporting.
Country-by-country reporting is a way of forcing multinational companies to account for their use of tax havens, which they have to report to their tax authorities, meaning that those tax authorities now have information that they did not have a quarter of a century ago to stop tax haven abuse by these companies. And it's the law in 80 major jurisdictions around the world, including the UK.
The answer was simple. It was to force these companies to disclose where they make their profits and where they pay their taxes. It came from a deep technocratic understanding on my part of how accounting works, but it was a practical proposal drafted in detail that could be implemented. It took more than a decade to get there. I thought the idea up in 2002; it was adopted by the OECD in 2015 and became law from 2017 onwards. That's what campaigning looks like. But the point is this, it was totally solution-focused from the beginning.
So too are my proposals with regard to reforming individual savings accounts or ISAs in the UK, and pensions, and joining them up with the opportunity to create real investment. I know, because of a technical analysis of how ISAs and pensions are used, that they are not funding real investment in the UK economy, and now they are basically either putting cash into dormant bank accounts or the funds are being used to buy secondhand shares and properties. If only we could turn that dormant money into capital for housing, infrastructure, energy, education, and training, we could transform the UK, and I've explained the mechanisms that could be put in place to make this work. This is an answer to the point which most people reach, which is saying, we need to invest. I've gone beyond that and said, "This is how we find the money to invest." That's what good campaigning does.
And another example is my promotion of modern monetary theory. I know that this is contentious, but I do it because this talks about how the relationship between the government and those who use money can be changed, and changed forever. It changes the balance of power between the state, the City, and democracy in favour of the state and democracy and against finance. If only government understood money, it's my argument that the government could then use it to serve people instead of markets. That's a systemic shift rooted in technical detail and not in slogans, but it's an answer to the question, "How do we solve poverty?" And my answer is, find the money, and modern monetary theory helps us do so. That's why it's important.
And it also shows that I'm not interested in tinkering. Sticking plasters are fine. There are campaigns that are incredibly popular that just apply sticking plasters, but that's not what I'm interested in. Those campaigns, like it or not, however photogenic they might be, and they are, do not create systemic change because they don't ask the big question, which is, " Why is this person in poverty?", or "Why is this person being discriminated against?", or "Why do we have global injustice on whatever the issue might be?" If we create systemic change, we have to ask those questions, and the consequence is a fairer, more just, more sustainable world for many and not the few.
Yes, that will mean harming the interests of some, and most especially in the work that I do, at least, the interests of bankers, landlords, and monopolists. And they are the losers, and I name it. I know that my work will upset them. I don't worry about that because that is the inevitable consequence of creating tax and social and economic justice in this country. They might abuse me for doing so, and I'm indifferent to their abuse because I've got a goal in mind, which is the relief of poverty, injustice, and discrimination, and abuse is the cost of serious campaigning.
So I won't just complain and do nothing.
I won't sit in a permanent seminar about how bad everything is.
I won't pretend that raising awareness is the same as having a plan.
And I won't do those things because my experience is that only solution-focused work actually delivers change.
We have to do the detail.
We have to prepare the proposals that explain how the nuts and bolts, and in particular the change in finance and accounting and tax rules, or anything else that is necessary to bring about the actual practical on-the-ground difference that will relieve poverty or whatever else it might be, is going to happen.
We can't just say, "We must do something". We've got to show what needs to be done. Without worked through examples, we just can be dismissed. Those in power can say "they don't understand the pressures on government", and as a result, we are swept aside.
So the biggest missing element in almost every campaign that I see is the explanation of the funding for what is desired. Almost no one explains how their proposals will actually be paid for. They just make flippant comments like, government is big enough, there must be some spare money for this purpose, but that isn't true.
Governments have to be persuaded to reallocate resources, and anyway, money is not the resource they are really transferring. Money just changes the allocation of real resources, people, skills and materials towards an outcome which you want done. So you've got to explain why and what the consequences are. Funding is just the way we allocate the real resources we have in our society, so start thinking there and then talking about how much money is required to reallocate them to what you want.
We must therefore embrace this level of detail. It's not good enough to say "we'll deal with the technical stuff later." Leaving the technical stuff aside is a catastrophic mistake for those who want real change, and for those who need it to happen. If we leave money and debt to the right, we hand them the power to say no. If there's one line you need to remember out of this video, that is it. If we leave money and debt to the right, we hand them the power to say no. It's very rare that I repeat a line, but I think it was essential to do so on this occasion.
Resource allocation is at the heart of political economy, and we on the left should own that.
Real campaigning must say what the change we want is.
It must say why it is needed and who it is needed for.
It must say when it must happen.
And most especially, it must explain how it will happen.
But above all of that, it must do that most uncomfortable thing of all; it must explain the maths. Without the maths, without showing your workings, then you are not going to get the result you want. If you want to change the world, you've got to deal with the details. Nothing else is good enough.
What do you think? As usual, there's a poll down below. What I'm asking you is, are you happy with the state of campaigning in the world that you see now? Are the campaigns good enough, or are they just sticking plasters? Do they deliver real change, or are they just moaning? How do you know that somebody you're supporting is really the master of what they're demanding?
Let us know in the poll, in the comments. We do pay attention to them. They really do influence how we make videos.
Poll
Loading ...Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
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!
The Green Party (GPEW) has risen in the polls and boosted its membership because Zack Polanski began to articulate the progressive narrative alternative to the baleful neoliberal ideology that all the other mainstream parties espouse and that all the UK governments for the past forty-five years have adopted.
The Green Party is now the standard bearer of UK progressive politics, but it has some critical weaknesses that must be rectified.
It must drop the very few naïve policies that remain in its Manifesto and rectify its critical omissions, like Modern Monetary Theory and a substantive policy on banking and finance.
But above all, the Green party must switch from its current mode of passive canvassing to an assertive campaigning mode with the explicit objective of persuading electors to vote for the Green Party and possibly become members and activists.
This is my insight after eighteen months as an activist in Manchester Green Party, whose door-knocking has been characterised by the passive market research approach that is not dedicated to persuading electors to vote Green, but merely to ascertain if they might already be disposed to do so.
Manchester Green Party’s approach is probably typical of other Green Parties, insofar as they all use the Targeting to Win as their guide. But Targeting to Win is a hefty tome about winning council elections not parliamentary elections. As such, its parochialism will eschew the progressive narrative which must be articulated in authentic engagement with electors is they are to be persuaded to vote Green.
Of course, positive campaigning and canvassing are not mutually exclusive, but canvassing is relatively low-skilled and positive campaigning very high skilled. It requires that its practitioners be properly trained in people skills and understand the progressive narrative and especially the key policies which underpin it. But that training has not been forthcoming in Manchester Green Party and there has been no authentic engagement within the party to properly equip its activists with the skills required to authentically engage on the doorstep with electors.
Unless the Green Party switches from passive canvassing to assertive and positive campaigning, in both council and parliamentary elections, with the explicit purpose of persuading electors to vote Green, then the positive leadership of Polanski will seem to be isolated and the party will lack substance and fail to be convincing. It is imperative that this switch be made.
Whole heartedly agreed – it is too often just about being nicer within a harsh system instead of changing the system fundamentally.
George Orwell pointed out that if we had better people, any system would work better. His example is Dickens. But we don’t, so the system must change.
Mr Anavi, my English teacher at Manchester High School of Art, started one lesson by writing a word on a sheet of A4 paper.
That word was “NICE”.
Mr A then tore the sheet into neat quarters and dropped the pieces in the wastepaper basket.
Needless to say, the effect was to reinforce and not drop the use of “nice” by me and possibly other pupils, at least beyond the English class.
But in the context of campaigning, niceness – the obvious decency of Green party canvassers – is no substitute for trenchant and assertive campaigning.
Also, at MHSOA, for our Lettering homework, we once had…
“When a man is in earnest and knows what he is about his work is half done.”
That’s very funny and one can poke fun at it.
There are plenty of nice variations…
• “When a woman is…”
• “When a person is …”
• “When one is…”
(But all fail by needing more letters!)
And in any case, Only half done? What about t’other half?
This is advice about building a house with no roof on. That won’t help when the Mancunian rain arrives.
“You can take the man out of Manchester but you can’t take Manchester out of the man.” is much sounder advice in my humble opinion – but regrettably it was never lettering homework.
A final word…
Politics is a very serious business but take some serious advice from Billie Holiday…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcXiBWy_UBI
Thanks
Rutger Bregman covered many of these issues in his second Reith Lecture on BBC Radio 4 just now, starting with the Fabian Society. His message was campaigning is a long haul but it is worth it in the end. He seemed to get a good reception from his audience in Edinburgh and some thoughtful questions, such as how you break through and persevere these days when ideas get shot down almost instantly on social media, from the left and the right. I’m sure it will be on BBC Sounds by now, if not as a podcast then as playback of the day’s radio.
I think that was the third lecture.
The second, in Liverpool, was very poor – and shattered his credibility to me. The Liuverpudlian audience stumbled him. He has no plan, was my conclusion.
I will listen.
I just listened to Rutger Bregman’s third Reith Lecture where he talks about “the ideas lying around” which are the foundations of social change. He references Fabianism as the origins of the welfare state and social democracy and of the Montpelerin group as the origins of neoliberalism. The biggest “idea lying around” now is Modern Money. Unfortunately he hasn’t tripped over it yet.
Agreed
Since watching the Rory–Polanski podcast and reading your pieces on capital controls, BoE remit and this article, I’ve been wondering about the “how” rather than just the “why”. Given today’s highly interconnected plumbing (gilt repo, FX swaps, CCPs, non-bank leverage) and the fact that Thatcher’s government first used an Order in Council in 1979 to switch off exchange controls and then, in 1987, repealed the Exchange Control Act itself so there’s no longer any off-the-shelf legal framework, introducing measures like this would obviously require a very strong and determined government.
What do you think the first practical steps would be in terms of legislation, the Bank of England’s remit, and PRA/FCA rules to introduce capital controls that actually work in the system we have now? I’m aware there’s a growing literature on this, but in everyday discussion this is the question people most often use to dismiss or undermine any proposal for radical change, a bit like Rory constantly asking “yes, but how would you actually do it in practice?”. I’d be really interested in how you’d answer it in concrete, worked-through terms, though I don’t expect answer or posting of this comment as I appreciate how complex this is.
You are right to say that Thatcher did two things: first she used an Order in Council to switch off exchange controls in 1979; then eventually scrapped the legal framework in 1987.
She also removed the “Corset” (Supplementary Special Deposit Scheme) which was the Bank of England mechanism designed to restrict the growth of the broad money supply by penalising banks that lent too much as well as relaxing hire purchase rules and deregulated Building Societies to allow them to lend more. The changes were widespread.
Ever since, those who benefit from an open-door system have pretended that this history makes capital controls impossible. It doesn’t. It just means we have to legislate again.
First, we would need a new Capital Management Act. That would give the Treasury powers to require registration and reporting of cross-border financial positions, to impose quantitative limits or charges on classes of flows (for example, short-term wholesale funding), and to direct the Bank of England and the regulators to use their tools to achieve those aims. The old Exchange Control Act is a precedent: it shows Parliament has done this before.
Second, the Bank of England’s remit would have to change. Alongside price and financial stability, it must have an explicit duty to maintain external and capital-flow stability. It would then be required to use macro-prudential tools – counter-cyclical capital requirements on foreign exposures, reserve requirements on short-term foreign liabilities, and limits on FX mismatches – in pursuit of that goal. Access to sterling liquidity could be restricted to institutions that comply.
Third, the PRA and FCA rulebooks would need revision. All sterling payment, clearing and repo activity for UK residents should take place in supervised entities that disclose their beneficial ownership and meet new reporting standards on FX, derivatives and securities financing. Time-varying regulatory charges – the equivalent of a transactions tax – could be applied to destabilising, short-term flows. Highly leveraged non-banks reliant on foreign funding would face tighter liquidity and leverage rules.
Finally, we should not underestimate how far transparency takes you. A public register of major cross-border positions, linked to company accounts and trust disclosures, would itself change behaviour.
None of this is technically difficult: banks already track these positions. What is missing is not the “how”, but the political will to say that managing capital flows is a normal function of a state that wants an economy which serves its people.
That is worthy of a post in its own right Richard. Brilliant stuff!
I might do that.
Thanks for the clear explanation. I agree the real problem is political will – and the fact that so many people still believe, in that old Thatcher sense, that there is no alternative.
There’s quite a lot of maths behind my proposals for a new earnings related pension system for Scotland (post independence) now. It consists of a National Pension Fund and a State Earnings Related Pension. The NPF also functions as a “Peoples Wealth Fund”. The intention now is to set out the ideas in two booklets – one about the pension system and the other about the wealth fund. Would you be able to carry out a “peer review” of the work Richard if you have the time? I would really welcome your feedback on it before the booklets are finalised.
JIM
I could try, but cannot promise right now.
Understood that you can’t promise anything but I’ll email the docs to you in hope.
I’m most of the way through ‘Radical Abundance’ by Kai Heron, Keir Milburn and Bertie Russell. (Link here: https://www.newsfromnowhere.co.uk/page/detail/Radical-abundance/?K=BDZ0057054945)
All in one sitting, because unlike all the books you refer to Richard, it actually has something to say about how a transition to the ‘safe and just space for humanity’ can actually be started, from where we are now. Using what they call Public Community Partnerships. So as to have the tools for building another kind of society, lying around and being used.
I think you might like that PCP idea.
Maybe, but I sense no economics in there. No plan then. And I note the first person to endorse it – who also has no plan.
In combination with Modern Money, I think it could work. In fact even without it. Just like your Taxing Wealth Report. It could be a move in the right direction, and open up space for further moves.
I’ll have a go at summarising the basic idea and send it to you.
Feel well soon.
Thanks
[…] commentator called Milano asked […]
I suspect one of the reasons why campaigners don’t find and advocate for a solution is that it comes with responsibility. Something that very few with actual power in this country seems to accept.
Even if what you do is right, as you said there will be winners and losers and you have to live with making some people lose. For a campaigner, especially a relatively young one, who may not have the knowledge and experience to fully understand the secondary and tertiary effects of what they suggest it can become a heavy burden if their suggestions are listened to and cause suffering.
On a tangent, I was listening to a podcast and heard the line of “If you don’t know the purpose of taxation is to pay for public services, you need to get economics for dummy’s”. I think this is a great example of why people need to understand some very basics of MMT or at least economics that taxes don’t pay for public services. People trap themselves in a cage by this thinking and it fuels the abdication of responsibility that politicians have used for 4 decades now saying they can’t afford to help people or build the infrastructure.
Thanks
[…] commentator called Milano asked […]
[…] did a video yesterday on campaigning and why most of it is just […]
Hi Richard, the UK once had sensible tools to manage the flow of money in and out of the country, and we could bring modern versions of them back. The story we’ve been told for years — that global finance is too powerful to regulate — simply isn’t true. What changed wasn’t our ability, but our political choices.
Back in the Thatcher years, the UK switched off exchange controls and removed the rules that kept bank lending and short-term speculation in check. That opened the door to an economy driven far more by financial markets than by stable, long-term investment. It benefited a small group at the top, but it left the country more exposed to instability.
A modern approach wouldn’t stop ordinary investment or people moving money for everyday reasons. It’s about making sure rapid, speculative flows don’t damage the wider economy, pensions, savings, or housing.
The first part of the plan is a new Capital Management Act — a simple, modern law that would allow the government to keep track of the biggest cross-border financial movements. If risky short-term money surges into the system, the Treasury could slow it down or apply targeted charges. Big institutions already track this information internally, so the challenge is organising it nationally, not reinventing finance.
Next, the Bank of England would have an updated remit. Alongside looking after inflation and financial stability, it would also watch for dangerous swings in foreign money coming and going. With this duty written in, the Bank could use tools it already understands — like higher capital buffers — to make sure banks and funds remain safe when taking big foreign bets.
Regulators such as the PRA and FCA would ensure major sterling transactions happen through supervised, transparent organisations. Small time-limited charges to the most destabilising short-term flows, would discourage speculation that creates boom-and-bust cycles.
To make this happen, we’d need a strong public campaign. The story must be told in simple, human terms: uncontrolled money flows can raise mortgage costs, weaken pensions, and make crises more severe. Building a broad coalition — unions, small businesses, community groups, economists, and regional leaders — would indicate a common-sense reform.
Parliament could pass the new law and phase in the changes over a few years — giving the UK more stability and putting the economy back in service of the people.
Hi Richard, the UK once had practical ways to guide how money moved in and out of the country, and there’s no reason we couldn’t rebuild modern versions of those tools. The idea that global finance is “too big to manage” has been repeated for years, but it isn’t really true. What changed were the political choices made decades ago.
In the Thatcher years, key safeguards were switched off. Rules that once kept a lid on risky lending and fast speculative activity were removed, and that pushed the country toward a model where financial markets had far more influence than steady, long-term investment. A few people gained from this, but it made the UK much more exposed to sudden shocks.
A sensible modern approach wouldn’t interfere with everyday banking or normal investment. It’s about reducing the harm caused by rapid, speculative money flows that can raise mortgage costs, affect pensions, and make economic downturns deeper.
One idea is to create a simple, modern framework that tracks the biggest cross-border financial movements. If a sudden wave of short-term funds looks risky, there would be a way to slow things gently or add a small charge. Large institutions already keep detailed records of these movements internally, so the task is coordinating what already exists, not inventing something new.
The Bank of England could also have an updated role. Alongside its current responsibilities, it could keep a close eye on big swings of money entering or leaving the country. With that responsibility clearly stated, the Bank could use the tools it already understands to make sure banks and funds stay safe when dealing with overseas exposure.
Regulators would ensure major sterling transactions pass through supervised, transparent channels. Light, time-limited charges on the most destabilising short-term activity would discourage the behaviour that fuels boom-and-bust cycles.
For any of this to happen, there would need to be a clear public conversation. People need to understand how unmanaged money flows can hurt mortgages, savings and stability. Bringing together unions, small firms, community groups, local leaders and economists would show there is broad support for a more balanced approach.
With that understanding in place, these changes could be introduced steadily, giving the UK a more stable and people-focused economic future.