Dave Clements at the Guardian Joe Public Blog has got entirely the wrong end of the stick on nudging, the Big Society and indeed the Tories generally.
He seems to think that there is some great conspiracy to entrench government control, but to stop government spending and activities.
Errr no.
I can’t believe we’re still having to explain this. But let’s give it another go.
We live in a democracy. We are governed by consent, not force. We are a developed society with enormous freedoms and choices in all sorts of areas – and, by the way, the point of the Big Society is to increase those freedoms and choices in areas where most people don’t currently have them. It is easier to encourage people to do something that makes sense to them than it is to force them to do something that doesn’t.
Nudging is about making it easiest to make the right choices. A first step in this is ensuring people actually make a choice at all – so for example, recent changes to legislation mean that now, when you apply for a driving licence, you have to choose whether or not to opt in to the organ donor register. You can – of course – opt out but you have to actually make the choice rather than just ignoring it.
The Big Society would be happening with or without the cuts. It is not about saving money (though of course we all have to). It is about enabling people to make choices – often in areas where they currently have none – that suit them best. Take the Free Schools programme – why should the only people with any choice in schools for their children be people who can afford to send them private, or to move into a ‘desirable’ catchment area? It’s immoral that we spend this much money on schools that fail to prepare children for the future, and I for one am glad that we’re attempting to do something about that. As I’ve argued before, we are failing our society and ossifying social mobility if only rich people have the opportunity to make the most of themselves.
Where I think Dave Clements is onto something is when he says, “The big society… is based on people … not relying on the state to make decisions for them”. He says that as if it’s a bad thing. I fundamentally disagree. It is not good for people to feel that they have no control over their circumstances. Conservatism – if it is an ‘ism’ at all –is about individuals, communities and society doing what is best for them, making the most of what is available and succeeding to the best of their abilities.
Dave Clements’ piece is a weird paranoia about ‘The Tories’ and their baby-eating tendencies. It assumes too that governments are actually far more capable than they really are. His final paragraph asks whether we can be trusted to run our communities if the government doesn’t trust us to make informed choices about feeding ourselves or educating our children – once again, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the government’s agenda is. It is entirely about informed choices. It is about signalling what the best choice is – but ensuring we have the choice to make the wrong choice as well.
He fails to acknowledge that we are nudged – influenced – all the time, by advertising, by peer pressure, by experience, by knowledge of what is and isn’t socially acceptable, and by what the state will and won’t do for us. We do all have the capacity to ignore those nudges – and in areas where a government is the biggest voice, it has the responsibility to create the conditions that enable us to make the best choices.
New blogpost: Why Dave Clements is wrong on nudge and the Big Society http://bit.ly/guOqUR #fb
New blogpost: Why @davec1ements is wrong on nudge and the #bigsociety http://bit.ly/guOqUR
RT @PlatformTen: New blogpost: Why @davec1ements is wrong on nudge and the #bigsociety http://bit.ly/guOqUR
http://bit.ly/fxSrCN @Platform10 interesting blog article on "Big Society" and Freedom
@PlatformTen Absolutely. Govt should present people with choice, not run their lives for them http://t.co/ZYTrp9n
As I’ve said before, people have got used to the government ” doing something” and being “responsible” for something. Most of the time that is a bad idea. People should take responsibility for their own actions
Dear Fiona,
Have you actually read the article? Some of your comments are so far wide of the mark that it makes me wonder.
“Nudging is about making it easiest to make the right choices.” And who decides what are the ‘right’ choices? You, presumably. Is that your idea of democracy? And as for your point about the donor register – if you are so obsessed with giving us a choice then maybe you should realise that the act of IGNORING donor scheme is also a choice. You may not like it, but if people have decided they don’t want to do it, or can’t be bothered then that’s THEIR choice. If you want to persuade them otherwise then you have to put forward arguments and ideas to make them want to do it. That’s what democracy is about. Instead, you avoid doing that because either you think the public is too stupid or won’t listen, and start to play psychological ‘nudge’ games instead.
“Dave Clements’ piece is a weird paranoia about ‘The Tories’ and their baby-eating tendencies.” Now you’re just clearly making stuff up. Where does he say or suggest this? The problem is not that you are just the same old baby-eating Tories, as you put it, but that the Coalition government is, despite the rhetoric of freedom, simply continuing to poke its nose into the affairs of private citizens in much the same way as New Labour have been doing for the last decade or more.
Hi Niall
Umm yes I have read it, that’s why I wrote about it!
I think you’re right that there’s an argument about scientific evidence vs political possibility; but I think we can all agree that, for example, it would be better for society and for individuals if more people were organ donors.
So people aren’t being FORCED to donate; but they are being asked to make a conscious decision.
His piece IS a weird anti-Tory paranoia. I can’t believe that anyone thinks that the government wants to stop all state spending.
Finally, don’t you see that we are nudged ALL OVER the place by all sorts of influences? The government (any govt) is only part of that. I don’t have a problem with them making it easier (through information, through choice architecture, or through incentives) to make the “right” (for society in general) choices, especially when people ARE still free to make what might not be the best choice for society but is entirely right for them.