I recently saw a film called Argo – which I highly recommend – in which the main character says at one point, If you want to hide something do it in plain sight.
I really like the idea of nudging. But I accept that there are some problems with it – it imposes value judgements (which is not necessarily a bad thing) and it can mean that people deliberately do things which are harmful because they don’t want to be pushed around by the government. But the underlying rationale for it is sound.
Richard Thaler says that the Danish ‘fat tax’ didn’t work because it was too small and too hidden. He’s right that if the consequences of a nudge are too limited, the nudge will have little to no effect (that seems pretty obvious). And he is saying that it was too discreet. That is the really interesting bit of his critique, and something that I think is often forgotten.
Taken together, the lesson is this. Firstly that politicians have a duty to be as transparent as possible about why they have reached a decision (particularly one which will entail big changes). Changes to the benefits system are supported by large numbers of people because they read/hear about what the current system does, they understand that it isn’t fair or affordable, and they understand what the changes are. Iain Duncan Smith and his team have done a fantastic job of making sure that people understand why, what and where the changes are happening.
Oliver Letwin is fond of saying that if you want to hide an idea, spell it out in a political manifesto. There are all sorts of criticisms of the Tories’ ‘hidden agenda’ in all sorts of areas. But what people are really saying is that they didn’t hear them when they laid out their plans. I have always accepted that the Coalition Agreement means things are a little different – we didn’t get to vote on that, and it was agreed behind closed doors (both of which I think make for difficulties), but it was based on the two parties’ manifestos, and is a clear statement of what this government was planning.
Taken together, the lesson is this. Firstly that politicians have a duty to be as transparent as possible about why they have reached a decision (particularly one which will entail big changes). Changes to the benefits system are supported by large numbers of people because they read/hear about what the current system does, they understand that it isn’t fair or affordable, and they understand what the changes are. Iain Duncan Smith and his team have done a fantastic job of making sure that people understand why, what and where the changes are happening.
Other government departments are less good at this – which is why people feel that there is some sort of hidden agenda. There isn’t – it’s all there in writing – but the politicians haven’t repeated and repeated until they are blue in the face why, what and how. Yes, this is once again a complaint about government communications, but it’s also a call for the second lesson to be learnt: that making substantive change means that substantive change has to be visible all the way through the process.
It is hard work and will mean that ministers bore themselves to tears before voters hear their message. But it has to be done. There is no point thinking that six weeks before the next election, ministers can make one speech and say, we did this and this and here is why things are better. There needs to be a sustained arc throughout everything that they say and do in order that the shape of the government’s record is understood and evaluated by electors in May 2015.
Grant Shapps’ post on the Coffeehouse blog last week, George Osborne’s conference speech and Times article this morning, and David Cameron’s conference speech are all good steps in this process. But too small and too hidden won’t be good enough in 2015. People need to know what the government has done, why they’ve done it, and to what effect, and – because voters have lots of other things to think about – they need to hear it a lot before it will mean anything.
The other vital part of this (which comes back to my post yesterday about attitudes) is that that message needs to be consistent. Discretion in this case is not the better part of valour; everything they hear, read, feel from the party needs to hang together with their own experiences. It requires enormous discipline and focus on the end point to deliver a consistent narrative for all that time. But it needs to be done.
New blogpost: The Danish fat tax, and lessons for politicians http://t.co/eT5dMGqG #fb
New blogpost: The Danish fat tax, and lessons for politicians http://t.co/A7NoQDkT