The public support the government line. Opinion will surely shift once the cuts hit home, when local services start to disappear. Even without a ‘double-dip’, with years of slow growth and high unemployment, it will feel like a long recession, whatever the formal definition. Yet we should not bank on any of this overturning support for the Cameron-Osborne cuts.
The problem is that the government’s rationale is simple and makes intuitive sense. Any family heavily in debt sees only one way out – cutting their expenses. George Osborne’s case is clear. And he tells a simple story – Labour messed up the economy, leaving us heavily indebted, and now the mess must be cleared up, otherwise we will leave future generations a terrible burden. But this story is based on a logical fallacy, the composition fallacy: thinking that what applies to every individual in a group must also apply to the group itself. The economic case for reducing the deficit at a slower pace is entirely sound. The economic risks and social costs of Osborne’s gung-ho approach to cuts are high indeed. This case has been made very well by Ed Balls and Alison McGovern.
But to oppose every single cut is a dangerous strategy. We need to present a credible alternative, which can be implemented in government – which will also involve cuts in the years to come. So should Ed Miliband attack the coalition while himself sounding tough on cuts? The danger here is that we end up letting the coalition define the debate, in a way that negates our values, driving us ever closer to their stance, while still leaving us exposed to the ‘deficit deniers’ charge.
Enter the elephant. You say ‘don’t think of an elephant’; the first thing I think of is an elephant. The word ‘elephant’ defines a mental ‘frame’, which you just evoked in my mind. The American linguist George Lakoff has written extensively on the concept of framing in political discourse4. Frames, according to Lakoff, are ‘mental structures that shape the way we see the world… what counts as common sense.’ The Osborne line is a frame, which neatly sums up a whole world view. Frames are closely connected to language – and this is why we should take care in articulating our approach to the deficit. When we use a word, even to counter a frame, we end up reinforcing it. Richard Nixon famously said ‘I am not a crook,’ and labelled himself – as a crook. Lakoff writes: ‘When arguing against the other side, don’t use their language… the words draw you into their world view.’ Making our case whilst ourselves talking tough on the deficit could end up strengthening our opponents.
Moreover, the evidence is that logic is not enough. People tend to accept only the information that fits their frame – neuroscience tells us that humans don’t reason as logically as we’d like to think. Just as most Americans once believed in a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, Britons might yet see George Osborne as the man who saved us from Greece’s fate. Nor would a straightforward appeal to self-interest necessarily help, once people have identified with a frame.
The challenge is not only to present a robust policy, but to reframe the debate in our terms, using our language, redefining common sense. Ed Balls’ ‘growth deniers’ charge is a start. Creating a frame around growth enables us to focus on the impact of Tory policy on families and businesses, struggling in a harsh economic climate, and on the irresponsibility of leaving future generations with a smaller economy. But the coalition can evoke a simple image of good housekeeping – a family in debt taking the obvious step of cutting back. The left doesn’t have anything like as simple a frame that can be so easily evoked – we badly need one. If you have thoughts on this then please do write about them and share them with Labour people.
Don’t think of an elephant by George Lakoff
I spent the whole election campaign telling people on doorstepf that the household analogy was beguiling but not true. Then I decided to use the anlaogy but explain why the policy of cuts is false. The family that is spending too much can decide it spends less on Mum’s bus pass, less on petrol and not repair the car when it breaks down. But if that means you can’t get to work on time and get fired, then you are even worse off. And so it is with the state, if we stop spending then we will slow down the economy so much that tax revenues for businesses and individuals will collapse. A double dip income brought on by aggressive cuts will bring down state income. Meanwhile welfare bills will go up. Now is the time for the Govt to be the Spender of Last Resort. Household and businesses are not spending so it is time for Govt to spend on employment creating projects. I could not persuade voters to abandon the easy household analogy. But they liked the logic of the household that cuts too much it spites its face.
I think we’re a bit snookered on the economy debate in terms of how it’s being mentioned so as someone who is not in anyway an economist even though I did predict the financial crisis long before it happened, longer than even Vince Mr Economy Cable was making noises about I stay clear from it. I can’t get my head round how the countries we are indebted to we’re allowed to loan us money if we couldn’t repay it. If we can’t pay it then surely we should have not been given any loans and if we could then there is no financial crisis. The best we can do is challenge every cut on there own merit, if there is a better way, show it and say it for example some regional development agencies had made loads.
because Andy ,money has no country ,it is just another commodity to be bought and sold like anything else,money and debt that is of course.
We need to use the same frames that the tories are using about the household facing difficulties. Surely what we are saying is that if you lose your job as painter or decorator and you can only find a job stacking shelves, yes you take that job but you don’t do a double shift or feed your children nothing but potatoes in order to keep up the mortgage payments. We’re saying you should re-negotiate your mortgage because you can’t afford to keep up the payments and you invest in your future by doing a Corgi gas fitter course so that you can earn at least as much as you used to if not more.
Lakoff’s book is well worth reading, campaigners should read it.
1/ This isn’t exactly the sort of idea being asked for, but it strikes me that the Tories and their Media Mates blew on vuvuzelas to distract voters’ attention from the bankers and turn it on to Gordon Brown. A useful simile ( or whatever )? 2/ Also……you wouldn’t run a business like a family’s budget, would you? If you did, you’d soon be bankrupt. 3/ As the cuts start to slash and burn, more and more attention will focus on the Cruelition’s case for them, and an opportunity will appear to try to engage in a big bit of political and economic education. It’s about time we got off the back-foot and became more positive in putting the arguments. Bob Vant
Countering the cuts policy on the doorstep is a nightmare, because the alternative view is, on the face of it, so counter-intuitive. Many professionals who are in this field, either as economists or as market analysts and brokers, also hold this simple household analogy – this is easier than looking at the complex nature of money from a government’s perspective and the impact of spending on the macro-economy (as Keynes said “you can’t earn what you don’t spend”). That’s why we need an easier story to sell, and I suspect a lot of expertise will be needed in getting that story right. It may also take some time to change people’s mentality on this – and meanwhile we need to have a credible policy…
‘cept, bit like trying to build a house in an earthquake zone ,swamp, cliff edge etc. Got so big now hasn’t it and everyone feels ooh er cor blimey , humanity, fate of the world, hangs in the balance.No wonder the Tories go running for the ‘Waltons’ approach! Of course we all know what fear breeds, (begins with F )