To continue the story of the narrative we are developing to explain the politics of care in a way that is easier for people to comprehend, whilst making it work better on social media, this post explains the positive framing we now intend to use for this project.
It is our intention, unless somebody can point out serious problems with this, to describe what we are promoting as Politics for People.
The subtitle would then be: The political economy of care.
Our experiences suggest that these changes are needed before I pursue this project further, which we plan to do. What we have discovered is that when people become familiar with the term "the politics of care," there is no problem with understanding it, but there is when they first encounter it. The problem we have identified is that on YouTube and other social media platforms, people decide what to watch in seconds, often without listening to a word, so understanding what is going on immediately is crucial.
In this context, politics for people:
- Is instantly comprehensible
- Uses everyday language
- Means no conceptual decoding is required
In contrast, the politics of care is:
- Abstract
- Sounds academic, or ethical, rather than practical
- Requires explanation before it is comprehended
In that case, for a scrolling viewer, the phrase 'for people' immediately tells them who the politics is about and whose side it is on.
Our research suggests that YouTube rewards relational language that implies inclusion, benefit, and agency. In this context, the phrase for people signals:
- Advocacy
- Alignment
- Conflict with elites or systems
By way of contrast, the words of care imply:
- Reflection
- Values
- Analysis
As a result, the risk we have found is that the phrase the politics of care can be misread as:
- Relating to welfare alone
- Sentimental
- Apolitical or moralistic
In contrast, the term politics for people:
- Can convey anger, urgency, and confrontation
- Works equally well for economics, tax, fascism, housing, and power
- Leaves room for hard arguments about money, markets, and the state
It sounds like a challenge, not the title of an academic seminar.
In addition, and critically, this is politics for people. It is not about people. Crucially, the description is active and implies that the purpose of politics is to create a state that delivers for the benefit of those living within it. There is, quite literally, nothing passive about that.
To add to that, the statement clearly states what is required and sets a standard against which achievement can be assessed. Politics is either for people, or it is not: that is the criterion by which all politics must be appraised. That is the obvious implication of the phrase. In itself, that makes the terminology complete, and that is what we were looking for.
Critically, this phrase is also inclusive, and that is also intentional. The description does not refer to politics for some people, or rich people, or working people, or anybody else who can be differentiated within society. This is politics for people, implying that it embraces everyone, because that is what it is intended to do.
Turning, then, to the suggested subtitle, this is the political economy of care. Using the phrase political economy rather than just economics is, again, deliberate, making it clear that care is a choice in this case, not a supposedly rational, academic, or imposed option.
I will come back shortly, and in another post, to our discussion of how we plan to define what we oppose, which necessarily involves reframing neoliberalism and fascism. But even without reaching that point, we think the term politics for people achieves the goal of defining what we are against without necessarily or always needing an opposing label. Any politics that acts against the interests of all people, given that politics for people necessarily embraces everyone, stands in opposition to what politics for people stands for. Again, a performance criterion is established simply by using those three words, because actions that do not meet the expectations implied by this requirement necessarily run contrary to politics for people.
The obvious question to ask, then, is what do you think of this? There is a poll below, but please add your comments as well.
Poll
Loading ...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!
‘People’ is a sullied term for me after BREXIT but I admit to being more interested in the ways and means than the label. I was looking for something ‘dynamic’.
I agree with PSR. “for People” to me suggests populism.
Reform probably claim that they’re doing “Politics for People”.
Maybe I’m overly suspicious, but to me it comes across as possibly meaning “Politics for me”.
The environmental slogan “Politics for People and Planet” works better because it’s clearly not just about self.
It will also reduce the audiemnce by 97%. Climate is a small niche – as the Greens know.
We are trying to reach the person who thinks this may be about them. We need to persuade them there is soemthing better.
The problem with the phrase ‘The People’ is not the word ‘people’. The problem is the meaning of the. Why the definite article? The is used as a qualifier. It implies some people are more qualified to be people than others.
That is why we won’t use it.
Thanks to you and your team for the perspicatity of being aware that current technology reacts to and [mis]manages language according to its emotional/affective effects.
Might the attached article on Bloom’s three basic domains of learning [the cognitive/thinking, the affective/emotional, and the psychomotor/behavioural] be of interest/use?
w.google.com/search?q=the+cognitive%2C+the+affective+the+psychomotor&sca_esv=8b78a5977e25020e&sxsrf=ANbL-n6wQcaNvR_76kcbjDETVsyoK_2zSQ%3A1770193458465&ei=MgKDae7wGpymhbIPpL2T-Ac&ved=2ahUKEwicmPTmtL-SAxV5U0EAHTmUC8MQ0NsOegQIAxAB&uact=5&sclient=gws-wiz-serp&udm=50&fbs=ADc_l-aN0CWEZBOHjofHoaMMDiKpaEWjvZ2Py1XXV8d8KvlI3o6iwGk6Iv1tRbZIBNIVs-5-bUj3iBl-UxHsANYwOkWWIHyK1NRBVtxaVLlI368r1sO_OMujwuZE1H9wBGiUEFKaIv-UExzkT4rqVSLwXbL5yWPGopUNljv5GQ5DwuDVa-IKUeFZ70StwpJt_rJTYvLKtJx3fZhTEKDS9dAdZKM0nO474w&aep=10&ntc=1&mtid=owKDacDOBcOthbIP2ZyxwAI&mstk=AUtExfDjeInMO-s2J8DZZdNarQSlqAwvTptCir3utmhTCDwlYs54TW7SWEJhX_oO6EiUIYnJAgWE6ldDM75IvNqms2a3GhvuG3lyhQC9-GfO3YciYb85DPLFLGqYd–X9OwfURkC3z1DAwLBqSutUoJuA7NBhLU4MWTxE90fDyAIwDmb5hVXa-VkcpoV6QvPaebU6HWNm6RAwOHkwgFNC2AbgFdDw8zmUIMUCgfKEomquH9pt3t5D6LnwUqy6cA2mCiER8IAAm8OJtvC2sgw9YvaML4jtPZ8LMkAs19LiHoOB3RKx33TfaIFOX4eXFq6MALnyNZi00MW99h3EA&csuir=1
That link does not work. Sorry…
Try this on Bloom’s Taxonomy:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/blooms-taxonomy.html
I don’t know if it’s the article from that Google search, but seems to hit the main point. Wikipedia also has an article on the subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_taxonomy
Thanks.
Yes, “for people” is better than the so-called “Labour” party, constantly on about “working people” as though other people don’t matter. (When the Labour party started out, it was good because it was clear that they were on the side of the workers, as opposed to the landed wealth of the day, but today’s wealth is largely derived from the manipulation of money markets by bankers and investors who are working (in a way) but not for the benefit of the people. I suppose I shall have to let you (!) continue with your subtitle though “political economy” just doesn’t mean anything to me, despite your having explained it somewhere; and as ChatGPT pointed out, the word “care” suffers from being vastly overused in many contexts by advertisers etc.
An excellent choice for exactly the reasoning you have outlined.
Thanks
Or to follow the lead from the 1970’s sitcom Citizen Smith, how about Politics for the People?
‘The’ is exclusionary
Personally, I’d suggest “Towards a caring political economy” as the subtle. It is dynamic, indicating a journey, and it uses caring as an adjective to describe the political economy (which I think is what you intend), hence avoiding any thought that this is only about the care homes and the NHS.
But a caring political economy could be based on philanthropy alone
This has to be about the state.
Sorry…
Good phrase. Politics for People & agree with the: Can convey anger, urgency, and confrontation etc.
What follows is a short bit of comedy – in the style of Monty Python (= surreal) – it will leave you either weeping with laughter, or very angry – or both:
Link to a water conference: https://www.smart-water-utilities.com/agenda
First up: South West Water – warbling on about using A.I. to “enhance wastewater network operations, increasing sewer survey speed and detail using AI-powered computer vision in the field and………. Gathering maximum insights from inspections to better manage sensitive coastal areas, Supporting environmental protection across a third of the UK’s designated bathing waters.
Compare & contrast with this question in the HoCommons in 2023: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-09-19/debates/36864789-18D4-4F2C-B03C-0A0FDADC9A50/SouthWestWaterEnvironmentalPerformance
What SWW is doing is performative, the AI stuff will make a miniscule difference to SWW operations (does every little bit count?) but allows the org to claim it is doing something. “Politics for People” wrt SWW should lead to “anger, urgency, and confrontation” I mention all this as a practical example. Normally I would go to the conf & heckle the SWW speakers but @ £700 I can think of better things to spend my money on.
Thanks and 🙂
Necessary, thought provoking and impressive work.
Thank you – and your collaborators.
Thanks, Joe.
People before profit is even more powerful.
But that is a small subsection of what I talk about.
For my tuppence worth, Politics for People works for all the reasons you outline. There is something about the subtitle, ‘the political economy of care’ however that my gut tells me isn’t quite there yet. I can’t pinpoint it and have no alternative to offer I just think there is a risk turning people on but then they tune out. I appreciate that this is going over old ground but that’s my worry
Noted
I think you may be right
Is it care or political economy that is wrong?
In enthusiasm for the title, I skipped over the subtitle. Political economy is something I didn’t really get until 60+ through your blog… I will think on it as I walk, and likely find that better brains have sorted it by the time I log in again.
🙂
Ok, how about:
Political economy that works.
Works for who is the problem with that. It works really well now for some, after all.
OK. Though it was given context by the lead “Politics for People”
Then, how about:
“Progressive Political Economy”
(as opposed to neoliberal economics)
Oh no. Sorry.
Progressive is an alienating word. We want inclusivity. Remember, this has to work for the unpersuaded.
“Politics for People”
Why not “Politics for Dummies”? It conveys exactly the same message to me.
I hate being critical, but we all put ourself in the “People” category. And we all have a political opinion: ranging from “I’m an MP” to “Politics has nothing to do with me.” What will catch **me**? What’s the hook?
It all sounds too “worthy education”, and a fait accompli, in my opinion.
A verb might help: “Building Better Politics for People”? Or maybe “Supporting Society through Politics”?
I’m not sure that my suggestions are useful, but are alternatives that perhaps explain my vote for “Try again”.
(I came too late to add to yesterday’s discussion.)
It isn’t for dummies. a) Because I don’t think my auidemce are dummies, and b) for copyright reasons and c) People is good precisely because everyone thinks they are people – so we might reach them, which is the aim.
Your other suggestions are, I am afraid, just too wordy – and need explanation. Politics for People does not.
I still prefer ‘Anything we can actually do we can afford’ – which is an immediate challenge – although maybe shortened to ‘Anything we can do we can afford’.
It is very difficult to get the ideas boiled down to a phrase – ‘politics for people’ is ok but maybe not startling enough or distinct enough from ‘power to the people’ -type slogans etc
More than three words and it’s dead. Sorry, but that’s a fact.
And this is also far too economically narrow. We are doing poltics as well.
I agree.
The term Politics for People with the subtitle The Political Economy of Care works for me as you have explained. I just wanted to throw out a phrase that popped into my head last night while mulling over your discussions. How about ‘Whole Society Economics’? and ‘Whole Society Politics’? It’s inclusive – pertains to everyone in society – and participatory – everyone is involved. I was thinking about how to eliminate the ideas of ‘us and them’, class war politics.
I don’t know how that would work in YouTube algorithms, so won’t say more. Feel free to shoot it down. Hahaha
Noted.
But what does whole mean?
And what is society?
If it needs exopanation it does not work and whole means there is a boundary still and many people feel outside society.
We like it “politics for people” and will use it within our literature (Senedd elections on 7th May 2026). You’ve unlocked a rich seam of ideas to explore for the next step in politics for people.
There is more to come.
I did a search on this term
I don’t know if it would cause problems but a book exists, published 1999, called ‘Politics for People’
https://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/?id=p067631
I also found a website called ‘Politics for People Live’. It looks to me to be completely AI generated for an Indian/Asian audience. It is completely uninformative about its target group and where it is based.
https://politicsforpeople.live/about/
Interestingly, I have a book bought for my degree in the 1990s by Shirley Williams called ‘Politics is for People’ 1981. That seems to have slipped completely off my search engine’s radar. I will have to revisit it.
Mind you, your blog post today was top of the results…
Thanks Maggie
I think neither of those are any threat
That works on the omnibus!
Very very good.
(I now have to redo my email sig!! – I see PFP now has a glossary entry)
But what I really want to highlight is:
How differently the FTF team do things.
Only a short time ago you went public with TPOC. We all cheered.
But then you put it into practice, you discovered a problem. You told us, explaining the frustrating YouTube reality, you sought feedback. I kept quiet, because I know nothing about the technicalities of how to run a YouTube channel and winning with algorithms.
You then brainstormed privately, pooling your expertise/experience/opinions and came up with a solution, and you shared it with us.
Although I didn’t participate, I did feel respected and included and trusted. That MATTERS because without it, this becomes the “Ely Family Murphy” experience and FTF is definitely not that.
My experience of politics has had the opposite effect on me, in recent years.
The contrast this morning was so marked, that it stimulated in me, what Ignatian spirituality calls “a movement of the heart”. I’ve learnt over the years to obey them. Hence this post.
Politics For People may or may not prove an effective slogan. Time and YouTube will tell.
But this example of “process” within FTF, is a powerful example of PFP in action.
This is HOW it was birthed, by collaborative, open, honest, inclusive decision-making.
“People” WANT that, and politics today so obviously doesn’t want US – the message from almost all of the parties is, “Shut up, piss off, we don’t want you, we don’t care about you, we make the decisions, not you, please vote for us.”
They will reap a bitter harvest from that wicked attitude.
We can and will sow better seed on better ground.
Well done, and…
KUTGW!
Many thanks. Appreciated.
There is more thinking to come.
I too like the way you’re going about this, Richard, but I’m having difficulty shaking off the feeling that the word “people” has been sullied by the evil-smelling miasma from populism. I don’t envy your having to make us of media whose business model is based on the clickbait syndrome, but I dare say you have to make use of the enemy’s weapons. Maybe I’m just getting old and slow to accept new ideas. I hope I’ll come round to liking the bouncy phrase “Politics for people”. Anyway the sub-title “The political economy of care” is perfect.
All noted, and thanks.
Let’s be honest. I like the politics of care. I also want to cut through. An echo chamber is not enough.
Well said RJ! A tear is in my eye, and I must out into the wind and sun
🙂
So must I. I nano stepped outside today.
Not surprisingly, the word ‘politics’ is a turn-off for very many people. That’s supported by communications research. I can see why you want to use it now, but as and when your vision grows to become a grass-roots movement, I’d say be prepared to change to something else.
Noted
Have you considered using ‘The politics of Blue Zones’ or ‘Blue Zone politics’?
I think the concepts of blue zones are gaining traction. The documentary series on Netflix ‘livin to 100’ has helped. As a GP I have suggested looking up blue zone research to many patients to help them understand the principles underlying good health and wellbeing. It seems to be catching on politically too in many places…
I know what blue zones are. My wife introcued me to the idea, ut the subject is mightily niche and so cannot work generally.
For those who do not know, try this https://www.bluezones.com/
To my mind, “Politics for People” implies it’s for Ordinary People, a direct antithesis of the current Politics we have, which is clearly for an elite minority.
The alliteration certainly won’t hurt either!