I am at present scheduled to broadcast twice on budget matters today.
I will be on Radio 2, alongside my usual co-interviewee Comrade Mark Littlewood of the Institute of Economic Affairs, from about 1.30 onwards on the Jeremy Vine Show on BBC Radio 2.
And then I will be on LBC at around 3.
Others are saying they may arrange things later.
I have also already been on Jazz FM:
http://www.jazzfm.com/player/
http://www.jazzfm.com/player/
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!
Good luck.
I hope that they let you speak!
An observation.
Media appearances such as today, along with the recent exercise comparing and contrasting the relevant debt levels and repayments between Labour and Conservative administrations, are cleary about reframing the narrative away from the failed neo liberal argument.
One contributor on a recent thread, I think it was MayP, referring to a recent comment by Willam Hague, pointed out that he appears to view economics as an art rather than a science. Now in terms of the way economics is actually practiced rather than how it should be carried out I’m inclined to concur on that point. However, the point is that the objective of reframing the narrative and wresting control of that narrative away from the failed neo liberal model is to bring back to that narrative an analysis which is actually congruent with the real world. To present fact, data, information and argument based on real evidence tested against the real world. Which is the basis of the scientific method inherited from what we like to refer to as The Enlightenment.
The problem here is that whilst reframing the narrative in this a is necessary, it is, unfortunately, not sufficient. An example taken from a radio 2 discussion last Friday lunch time illustrates why this is the case. The discussion was about Canterbury’s observation about fear of immigration and racism. I don’t recall who which of the two guests it was who made the point, using actual Government statistical data, that immigrants have been found to be a lower percentage than non immigrants when it comes to claiming both out of work benefits and in work income supprt; however, the other guest, Lord Green of Deddington from Migration watch, dismissed these facts by saying, and I’m paraphrasing here, “people arn’t interested in figures.”
And herein lies the problem. There exists within at least our society a significant cultural rejection of the evidence based approach and methodology of science. Facts, information and data which contradicts and challenges previously aquired beliefs and prejudices are rejected out of hand by a large part of society. This includes not just politicians and the commentariat but also many ordinary people. Trying to reframe the narrative by recourse to facts like anything up to 15 times more money is lost in tax avoidance by wealthy individuals and corporations than is lost through benefit fraud is like talking to a brick wall. It contradicts the view, which exists as a convenient comfort blanket through which to express emotional frustration, that everyone on benefits is a scrounger.
In taking a reality based approach to reframing the narrative it will therefore be necessary to begin any and all discussion by framing the terms of that discussion along the lines that our society is where it is today as a result of evidence based enquiry and observation which seeks to match actual practice and policy with observed reality. No one would seriously expect, for example, to approach a bend in the road in a motor vehicle at 70mph and not end up spread all over the tarmac. It’s not a matter of common sense it is actual real world physics based on scientific principles of evidence involving rates of velocity, acceleration, inertia and so on. Similarly, no one would seriously argue that it’s OK to leave the chip pan on the stove unattended on the grounds that the rate of heat transfer or the laws of thermodynamics were of no consequence, did not matter, or were of no interest to them because taking such evidence into account and acting accordingly does not fit with their world view or personal prejudices.
Consequently, prior to presenting the evidence necessary to reframe the narrative it will also be necessary to set the terms of the discussion as, by necessity and in line with our traditional enlightenment values which have been so useful and benificial to us all and our society, evidence based on the grounds that this has been proven to be the most effective and benificial way of proceeding and arriving at a conclusion about what is and is not practical and what does and does not work in the real world. Not proceeding on the basis of that evidence based approach will result in incorrect and faulty policies and practice which will produce negative rather than positive results. As we are all traditionalists, mindful and grateful of our scientific and evidence based enlightenment values, proceeding on any other basis would be acting against our own best interests.
So – resist the dumbing-down, present a case, and be seen as the one that is presenting a case, show the other guy up.
We still need to sharpen our memes though, Hate it or not, that’s always been the case.
You can do both.
That was the whole point of the observation.
Moreover, wiping the floor with the individuals arguments, to repeat, are necessary but not sufficient when the factual evidence based approach used to do that is flatly rejected through either a culture of anti-intellectualism or deliberate sophistry. As an example people have regularly been demolishing the nonsense that Trump comes out with and that seems to have worked a treat does it not?
What needs to be done, again to repeat, is to set the terms of the debate at the outset as needing to be evidence and reality based. That way, when the evidence is presented to reframe the narrative there is nowhere to hide by rejecting, through whatever means, the validity not of the evidence but of the evidence based approach. Which is what the balloon head from Migration Watch did last Friday on R2 and which so many do.
No wriggle room. No means of escaping. And the only way to do that is to ensure that all the players and listeners are in no doubt that the evidence based approach is THE framework of operation prior to presenting the arumen aimed at rerasing the narrative. Being part of the reality based community should not be optional.
Reading the above reminded me of this article by Ben Goldacre from 2010:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/may/01/bad-science-election-smears
It appears that some people, confronted by facts that undermine their false beliefs, simply cling mor strongly to their false beliefs. This is deeply depressing to those of us brought up on Enlightenment values.
There is a saying – something like the small lies will be accepted for what they are but incredulity will prevent the really big lies being seen as such.
And the economy is in a similar position.
So to me the way forward has to be to shout that the economy, as a mechanism evolved by humanity for its benefit, is a human construct.
If the economy causes significant numbers of us to lack resources, our (theoretically) democratic governments can modify the economy in any way they wish and the scientific approach will allow us and them to forecast the effects of these changes. Any crises are, by definition, man-made. Much as the Tories and their banking friends would wish us believe otherwise, it is not like the weather, where we have to accept that we can’t do much about the rain or the wind.
Listening to an Essex vox pop on R4 this morning everyone without exception saw the economy in terms of a household.
The questions: What is the economy for? Who issues Sterling? How is money created?
had never ever been considered by any of them (including the interviewer I’ll bet).
In the hope that some in the media might tutor themselves before talking, I’ve started complaining to the BBC when their correspondents do not educate or inform, even when they do not fail to entertain….
Richard, I’ve just been catching up on the budget. One observation – which I’m sure you’ve reported on. A year after shifting local government funding onto business rates (so called devolution) Osborne then alters the business rate regime thus blowing a hole in local government funding. Talk about local authorities taking a hit. In many areas where small businesses prevail this will create severe problems.
I have said it to the press, RDio 2′ LBC and ITN
And this will result in reduced social services, of course
Another cut for those in need
Why does no one point out that the only reason for any growth over the last 5 years is the massively increased labour pool because of immigration from the eastern EU states?
I have tried to on Twitter
Which really is only the eighteenth/nineteenth century population increases all again. But of course both Osborne and Blair have both forgotten history (even while Osborne had a mediocre degree in it!) Indeed many, if not most, economists seem to have forgotten history too.