There are people I know who have no interest in politics, or so they say. They certainly evidence almost no knowledge of current political debate, who is who in politics, or what might be disputed. They are people who are teachers, work for the NHS, and commercial companies. As far as I know they all vote though. And in that apparent paradox there is, I think an important point to note, of which I have become increasingly aware as a result of reaction to some of the tweet threads that I post.
The point is that people do not vote for ideas. They are not pro or anti-markets. Nor are they for or against public ownership, or unions or many other things politicos think important. Rather like the LibDem councillor I know who has no great political views, but who has a long list of issues that need to be addressed where they live, most people vote on the basis of what they think has got to be done.
They may weight that concern with a ‘but how are you are going to pay for it?' consideration, but only if they are not sure that a stated objective is achievable and the economics is unclear. The ‘how are you going to pay for it?' question is not what it seems in that case: it is actually about competence more than anything else.
To put it another way, for all the debate about the ‘Overton Window', the biggest victims of that particular debate are the pubic who are denied the opportunity to vote for what they might want by people competent to deliver it because either the dogmatism or paranoia of some in politics denied them the chance to do so.
My suggestion is that instead of voting on the basis of ideals the logic people use to decide who to vote for is based on three questions. The first is what is on offer? The second is to ask how closely these offerings match with their own hopes and aspirations, whoever might be offering it? The third is to ask whether the person making the offer appears competent (which embraces, crucially, confidence) enough to actually deliver it.
The opinion is reflected in my own work. I am intensely pragmatic. I have explored MMT in some depth, for example. Much of it is really useful. It is a proper explanation of the world as it is. It helps answer the question ‘what can be done?' It does not need to be explained in technical depth to be understood, so long as the person offering the explanation really understands what they are saying. And, let's be honest about this, it is also flawed at present in the sense that the question as to how tax can control inflation requires that some developments in tax have to be considered, and that most who propose it do not explain how to address the inequality that results from steady government deficit spending. This has to be addressed if society is to remain fair despite the increase in private wealth, and in the disparity of its distribution, that deficits can give rise to, as QE has proved. These ideas have to be honestly faced if people are going to believe it because don't vote for ideas, they vote for what they think are viable ideas.
Candour about how to finance green issues is also key in that case. As is very apparent from media reporting this morning, the cost of a green new deal is to be the battle ground for new disputes between the far right in the Tory party and society at large. But this battle will not be won on the basis of ideology. People know climate change threatens them. Whether we tackle it, or not, depends on who can convince people that we can do so with life still being well worth living when the transition is over.
The right-wing will argue that climate change is just a means to spread socialism with more taxes resulting. Their usual short term fear agenda will be in play. Saying in response that this is about survival is not enough in that case. Showing that the capital to deliver this change is available without hitting people's pockets (as it is) is as important. That we can have survival and a better life free from fear by better using the resources already available in society is key in that case. Of course, having the idea to do this is vital. Bit what is critical is convincing people that this can be done. Then, and only then, can the right be beaten. Ideas won't come into that; who can deliver will.
My suspicion is that for most people engaged in debate here ideals matter. And, of course, they do. But debate is not win on that basis, I suspect. Apart from an innate senses of fairness, which I think most people have, ideals do not drive politics when most people don't really link the two. Competence is what matters to them. In that case the issue for those who want to see their ideals influencing the way society is managed have to note that word ‘managed': the translation of ideals into actions that actually matter to people is what wins or loses elections. And for too long the left has forgotten that, and quite probably still is.
But I stress, this is no appeal for a return to Blairism: the ideals matter, of course. But shouting about them does not win elections. Turning ideals into reality is the challenge. Then elections can be won. And this is what Labour, and others, are still not doing well enough.
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:
Everything is all so short term. Every time one looks at a policy area there is no attempt to think beyond the next week – many politicians of both parties seem to have trouble even with that.
At a local meeting I asked the assembled pols to tell me what the local high street should (or would) look like in ten years. None could provide a coherent answer.
And that is worrying……
A related argument from Alan FInlayson ‘not values but a concrete, believable and deliverable programme’
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/06/labour-values-political-error-demands-politics-keir-starmer
Thanks
For most politicians ideas matter. For the majority of voters ideas are less important. But what politicians do understand is that in order to put their ideas into action they need voters to vote for them. To this end politicians latch on to single issues which drive the vote- “The economy stupid”, “Brexit”, “Nationalism derived from the Falklands war”, “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” etc etc. It is the simple need to get that majority at an election that drives politicians. After power is attained they can sit back and do their own thing until the next time the voter is required.
I think it more complex than that
Hmmmm………………….. thought provoking.
If the Tories or even Labour came out and started to talk about MMT, what do you think the reaction would be?
Might society call foul and people call into question why austerity was ever done in the first place? Might there be retribution required?
Why did Labour institute average earnings pensions in the public sector to replace final salary ones when it could have afforded them; likewise why have we had austerity since 2010?
A lot of time and faith and effort has gone into sustaining the lies that govern economics. Too much is invested in those lies I think for any politician to begin to pull back the curtain. I think politics would be seriously damaged if it sort of changed its mind with some sort of epiphany over MMT. Of course I’d like it to be but that’s another matter. But I think it would be close to a lynching myself. The lies have just gone on for too long, they’re too deep. There’s a lot of fear in the denial of any truth isn’t there?
And of course, you might choose not to explain MMT to the public in which case the naysayers will always be on hand to re-assert the invalidity of that which must remain un-named and unmentioned. That is the problem with not explaining something in public – it can disputed and it often is.
And, as you say its complex. The hoi polloi are thrown off the scent aren’t they of something new and hopeful in politics in the shape of blame culture (BREXIT / the EU / immigrants). Society is always ripe for having new threats and public enemies identified for them. So instead of good ideas, they are presented (or should I say bombarded) with bad ideas like the reason why the NHS is in a bad way is because of immigrants. And then the Government makes that a ‘reality’ by creating rules for re-charging those who cannot prove residency. So it must be true because Priti Patel has done something about it!
Timothy Snyder points out (Black Earth, 2015) that the Nazis managed to get the Slavic peoples (whom they saw as racially inferior and slated for extermination themselves) to help them kill Jews by planting the idea the Jews were communists, and communists were Jews. As many of these lands had been suffering under Soviet governance before German occupation it was quite easy to get people to help make the holocaust happen apparently.
I say again, lets not be too hard on ‘the people’ and lets not write off their ability to deal with ideas. It’s not their fault that they are misled and constantly fed bad ideas. A lot of these people find daily life a grind, struggle to keep up and no doubt get treated like shit by employers and the welfare state that is constantly nudging people away.
On the other hand – lets look at the other end of the scale in my own extended family.
My brother in law is private school educated, and last year he sold his very ordinary house in West London for nearly £2 million. Before that time they used that asset to build a holiday home in Croatia that they can rent out and live in too. He is now looking for somewhere else smaller in London to get residency after BREXIT (he’s that nice middle class boy who recently has spoken of wanting to curtail the lives of many of the Tory party you may remember as he is really angry about BREXIT).
And then there is my father in law and his partner who was ex-CEO of an education authority who live in a huge bungalow big enough for a family of 6 in a village in North Yorkshire. They are both retired and drive around in a top of the range BMW SUV.
I have bought both these people (avid readers and good at dinners and get togethers to give forth their views on politics and what else) Stephanie Kelton’s book last Xmas – the hard back version actually, based on conversations about tax and spend and what is wrong with the country and you know what?
Neither of them have read it yet.
Now of course, there might be lots of reasons for that but I put it to you that as bad as things are in the world of the ‘ precariat’, what is it with our well educated supposedly well read better offs who don’t seem to want to know about issues like MMT and tax? Or don’t seem interested?
And this is not an isolated case – there is a culture of contentment with too many even moderately well off people who although they profess to be in the know are still just too comfortable to be interested in something like MMT. There is no need for them really to see MMT as answer to their concerns because really – other than how they spend their money – they have no concerns. Therefore MMT is well……….. – irrelevant to them.
To me, that is what going on. The bottom end of society is fed mass distraction because they really want change but have the means obfuscated by agnotology.
The mid to upper end of society is still enabled by the markets to self-realise through consumption and use its sharp elbows to get the best of this and that with policies that pander to their concerns (such as Academy schools for example). They are actually quite happy to keep things as they are because as I said they’re comfortable for as long as they are indeed comfortable. And who knows how long that will be for?
Both situations make it hard to break through at these two extremes. But in the middle somewhere are those asking the sort of questions that get asked here.
And neither the Tories or Labour seems to have the answers because I think that they are trapped in this make believe world of markets – they have swallowed it all hook, line and sinker.
I think change will come about externally from the major parties in this country – either another movement will emerge or the consequences we face will be that severe that existing politicians will just break ranks and tell the truth because the truth will have made itself evident by that time anyway.
The only caveat is that change is coming and I think Johnson and his followers know it. And they will fight anyway so that they can to keep their position – even the lowest dirtiest tricks will be used. And so will many any Labour who are well paid to be there and do essentially nothing. Change is hard because it means a change in stature for a lot of powerful people who have just been exposed as thinking very short term (attributable I think to all politicians and the election cycle).
If I were you, I’d just keep banging on about what you’ve been banging on about. Ideas – we still need those ideas. All we are lacking is the intent. It will come but let’s not write people of as not interested in ideas. All that is needed is a bit more effort and lot more money.
Thanks
Ideas are hard….
What is needed is policy based on sound thinking
That’s always been my belief
And we will never convince everyone
30% of people will always be Tory
This is exactly what was discussed in the Guardian recently.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/06/labour-values-political-error-demands-politics-keir-starmer?__twitter_impression=true
I notice a lot of people have almost reflexive views which reflect the majority opinion around them or of their most important group. Probably we all do that as there is so much to know and so little time. Most of us give our close attention to just a few areas.
I read that in many focus groups people were often approving of Labour or left leaning policies until they were told they were Labour policies.
The mass media have been IMHO able to establish a myth or meme, that the Conservatives are better with money and,, in your terms, competent. Since 1945 the Conservatives have enjoyed several periods where they won the second, third or even the fourth elections, with the exception of Heath who failed to deal with inflation and inflicted the three day week. Even they polled more votes than Labour but had fewer seats.
The myth is ‘the Conservatives have to clear up after Labour.’
In1931 Labour had to deal with the fall out of the Wall Street crash, hardly their fault.
In 1951 they left office (they had more votes but fewer seats) having established the welfare state and nationalised and invested in major parts of the economy. The country was ready for more consumption.
They next left office in 1969 with a surplus. In 1979 they had tried to manage the oil price crisis and the inflation caused by the Competition and Credit Control Act. (for which Heath got little criticism). We were told Labour isn’t working with a million unemployed people.
Thatcher did not make monetarism work, and unemployment almost trebled, but was rescued by North Sea oil and the Falklands war. Before the Conservatives left office they had imposed the ERM crisis and low levels of public investments. Labour was able to recover from this and as Richard has shown, was not the borrow and spend party.
The global financial crisis was not Labour’s fault and both parties had encouraged light touch regulation of the financial system.
The Tory /Liberal Democrat austerity was a failure but it seems to have established a view that spending “taxpayers money” – which is not accurate-is something to be discouraged.
I am not sure what the answer is except that Labour, or a Progressive Alliance, has to overcome the myth of their economic incompetence or the myth of Conservatives being better at economic management. It is constantly being reinforced by the media and maybe the IFS.
But this cabinet is lacking in talent and there are signs of things unravelling. So they may fail on a scale to drive them out of office. The opposition, though, need to speak clearly with positive plans, and, maybe agree to certain common policies. I cling to hope.
We have to cling to hope
Thank you writing this.
“people do not vote for ideas … most people vote on the basis of what they think has got to be done.” – – – I completely agree. By the way, this is also why I find the work of 38degrees so attractive: It is issue based.
“most who propose it do not explain how to address the inequality that results from steady government deficit spending” – – – I have also noticed this problem. If I want to read more about how to address the inequality that results from steady government deficit spending, what should I read?
“That we can have survival and a better life free from fear by better using the resources already available in society is key in that case.” – – – A concrete proposal that gets quite some support in the US (because it is market based, small government and bipartisan) is a carbon fee and dividend (as opposed to a carbon tax). There are several groups campaigning for it. Not sure whether these efforts will bear fruit, but anyway there is a lot of hard work that needs to be done on the ground. As you say, just talking about ideas will not suffice.
Right now the best responses to your questions are in my twitter threads
See Money for nothing and my Tweets for free to find the collected volume
More is coming on this
Otherwise this is an almost unnoticed topic
Interesting but all I would point out is that for too long Labour has tried to get swing voters to vote for them. Therefore policy focus has been about winning over that limited albeit electorally crucial number of people.
Everyone I talk to is fed up with Labour because although they expect the Tories not to care, they expect Labour to care. And the impression is that Labour do not care for working people – and I’m not talking about professional classes either.
And what do they get instead? A Labour party talking like Tories to Tory swing voters !!
I honestly believe that our voters have HIGHER expectations of Labour than they do of the Tory party. Higher in terms of really being of a help to people.
The political atmosphere out there is toxic with identity politics getting all these groups seeming to be in conflict with each other for their needs. But the truth of the matter is all these groups – all these peoples – need the same thing in common – investment, support and services and hope. Instead they are being made to compete for artificially reduced budgets.
Until Labour loses its passion for swing voters, they will remain shunned. Labour need Clem Attlee MKII in terms of vision and reality. Labour needs to unlearn Neo-liberalism and go back to its roots pronto.
Do not forget the 33% who did not vote in the last election. Labour should be focus on these people as hey all ready know the tories are useless and that’s half the battle.
…………..Labour needs to go back to its roots in order to not be like the Tories – to give a real choice to the voter – and that can be done if they do embrace the realities of MMT and tax.
You were close once about this Richard and I believe that you will have your chance again.