Earlier this
week, an opinion poll suggested that the health service would be the top
priority issue for people voting in the Assembly elections in May. Whilst I can’t dispute the findings of the
poll itself – I’m sure that it’s an accurate reflection of what people said – I
wonder what it actually means. The
implication is that those who see health as their top issue will sit down and
carefully compare the detailed promises of each party on the subject and come
to a conclusion about which party is proposing the policies which will do most
to improve the health service in Wales before going out and making their mark
alongside the name of the appropriate party and candidate.
Years of
political campaigning, however, tell me that it hasn’t worked that way in the
past, and it is unlikely to work that way in the future. It seems to me much more likely that voters
will use their general perceptions and prejudices about parties to justify
voting in much the same way as they would have voted anyway; the number of
voters swayed by detailed policy commitments is a lot lower than politicians
and the media would have us believe.
The question of
what motivates people to vote as they do has also come up in comments on a few
recent posts on this blog, most recently here. One of my anonymous ‘friends’ argued that “People vote 'for' a reasonable expectation
of a better standard of living. And
people vote 'against' anything that is likely to get in the way of an
anticipated improvement in standard of living”. In a rather more nuanced contribution,
Democritus argued that “when it comes to
votes of first order importance … the main issue tends to revolve around which
choice is likely on balance to make the polity as a whole or the voter as an
individual better, or at least not worse, off”.
If it were
really true that most people vote in accordance with the more extreme
interpretation of that perspective, then it would set a very high – (perhaps impossible,
for reasons I’ve touched on before and will return to in the future) – bar to achieving
independence, because it would require us to convince the majority of people in
Wales that they could be certain of being personally materially better off as a
result. Even the more nuanced position which
‘merely’ requires people to be convinced that we’d be materially better off as
a whole (or at least no worse off) is still a fairly high bar to set.
Personally, I’m
not so certain that either of these positions stands up well to detailed
examination, although I’m closer to agreeing with the second than the first.
Whilst there
are some individuals who really do vote at elections on the basis of naked short
term self-interest, I wonder how general that really is. I'd agree that it has become more common in
recent years; I’d put the turning point at around 1979 - although whether the
election of that year led to a change in attitude or caught a mood which was
growing anyway is more of a moot point.
In either event, from that point on, the Tories positively encouraged a
more selfish and self-interested approach, and Labour caught up under
Blair. Much of what passes for politics
since then has seen parties (and not just those two – the infection has spread)
carefully crafting their offerings to seek to appeal to the perceived
self-interest of selected target groups.
And the media have aided and abetted in that process. But does it really govern the voting
behaviour of the majority?
It’s also possible
to argue, of course, that even people who don’t vote on the basis of such
narrow personal interests nevertheless vote for what they see as being the best
outcome for some larger group of which they are members, which is still voting on
the basis of self-interest albeit in a more diffuse fashion. They could be voting for what they think is
best for their children or grandchildren; for their socio-economic class; for
their nation; or even for the planet as a whole. All of these can be interpreted as
self-interest of a form, even if at one or more removes.
There are
occasions, however, when what looks like a vote in favour of an economic
self-interest is actually little more than a rationalisation of a much darker
motive dressed in the clothing of economics.
I’m thinking here of the antipathy towards immigration, usually
expressed in terms of jobs or economic costs such as benefits no matter how
much that rationalisation is at variance with the facts. But if we were to interpret self-interest
more widely again, then I suppose that we could see ‘not wanting to have more
foreigners in the country’ as little more than a variant on the theme of
self-interest.
All of the
above assumes, in one way or another, that electors are considering all the
options before voting and that voting is a considered and rational act. I wonder.
In my time at university I read about the work of Graham Wallas who argued
as long ago as 1908 (Human Nature in
Politics) that voting is largely the result of habit based on irrational
assumptions. That still seems as
perspicacious an assessment now as it did when I first read about in in 1971. To the extent that the electorate as a whole
votes on the basis of self-interest, I rather suspect that it is more a
question of viewing self-interest through a prism based on pre-existing
prejudices and assumptions. That
includes the rather simplistic, and hopelessly out-of-date, perception that
Labour is for the workers and the Tories are for the bosses.
None of the above
means that voting behaviour can’t and won’t change, but it helps to explain why
change is often slow. Even where change
appears sudden (Scotland for instance?), that is usually the result of a
process where perceptions have been changed over a much longer period. Sudden voting change doesn’t come from
nowhere.
What does all
this mean for the independence project in Wales? Two things, it seems to me. The first is that a vote for independence can
only follow – never precede – a lengthy process of changing the perceptions
through which people view the issue; and we will never do that by simply
parking the issue until things ‘get better’ by themselves. And secondly, that convincing people that we
should be independent isn’t simply a question of demonstrating direct and
incontrovertible economic benefit; those who argue that it is are not merely
postponing the question, they’re setting what looks to be an unsurmountable
barrier, which simply makes me wonder about their real commitment to the aim.
Posts
15 comments:
Hello John,
Thanks for coming back to this.
The more doors one knocks at election times the more the Wallas proposition may seem to hold water. After geeting lots of replies along the lines of "Sorry mate. We're ALWAYS Labour here" or "I'll be voting for a LOCAL man" it's tempting to conclude as Mr Trump puts it in his inimitable style that “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters,”.
But Trump's surge itself is a product of voters abandoning their silos in a revolt against the GOP elite. Further if Wallas findings were universally true then no-one would ever change their vote - but in practice enough do to maintain a semi-regular alternation, keeping the politicians on their toes. Sure, psychologically speaking, rooting for a particular political party is to many folks little different to backing a certain sports team or professing a notional attachment to a particular religious denomination. Indeed voting itself is inherently illogical from the purely individual standpoint, but people do still by and large regard voting as a civic responsibility and take it fairly seriously.
Most political parties in practice recognise this dichotomy in their strategies. They try to pursue the twin aims of motivating their "core" supporters to turn out and targeting potential "switchers".
That "identity" is important in determining political allegiances is indisputable, but identification can be strong or weak and can alter over time. It's rather fun to look at the composite mental pictures the public have of the Tories (think Jacob Ress Mogg), Labour (think Rod Richard's "short, fat & fundamentally corrupt" summary). Lib Dems and Greens inevitably featured beards and sandals. Plaid's was a person literally dressed as a daffodil!
Finally (for now) on the narrow issue of the relative importance of the economy vis a vis immigration in the context of the present referendum I think this piece by Atul from Labour-uncut is interesting: http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/02/23/remain-will-win-easily-boris-will-be-irrelevant-and-immigration-will-barely-register-in-voters-choice/#more-20620.
I think you've got everything pretty much right. Voting is largely based on self-interest in all its forms, pre-existing prejudices and irrational assumptions included. It's as considered and rational as you would expect from the level of education (in all its forms) of the voting populous.
Change takes time and invariably comes with improving education. Scotland and England have experienced more dynamic voting patterns of late because of vastly improving education levels relative to Wales. Some would argue that maintaining this differential is entirely in the interests of Welsh Labour. And particularly so if you look to the communists worlds of China and Vietnam where education attainment amongst the young, certainly in terms of literacy and numeracy, vastly exceeds anything ever achieved here in the UK.
But now turn to recent happenings in the US (and read the piece by Democritus above). Here we can see the power of an individual to bring change. An immediate change.
In many ways Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair all did likewise. They used the force of their personalities to 'sell' an attractive proposition that vast numbers ended up voting for. Remember, Margaret Thatcher increased her percentage margin of victory ever time she stood for re-eelction. As did Ronald Reagan. And George Bush. A quite remarkable achievement.
And so we can, perhaps, conclude that political change happens as a result of education. But such change is almost always slow, generational. Faster change, almost immediate change can only be brought about by individuals, individuals with a force of personality.
Perhaps this is what we need here in Wales if we ever want the electorate to seriously consider the matter of independence. But I'm sure we all knew this anyway. We just don't like saying it out loud!
Anon,
Hmm. I think that there is rather less agreement between us than you suggest. I thought that I was actually disagreeing with the notion that "Voting is largely based on self-interest in all its forms". To the extent that it is, it is self-interest in such a diffuse form as to be a long way removed from the rather simplistic view of materialistic self-interest.
I'd also take issue with your assertion that changing voting behaviour is all about education. It sounds to me as though you are saying, in effect, that if only people wee as well-educated as yourself, they'd vote differently. Leaving aside the implicit superiority in that, the question of the impact of pre-existing prejudices and perceptions isn't one which depends on education. All of us bring our own prejudices and perceptions to bear, and all of us suffer from 'confirmation bias', no matter how hard we might try to avoid it.
I'm also not sure that I agree with the notion that powerful individuals can bring rapid change. To use a horticultural analogy, some seeds grow more rapidly than others, but they all depend on the fertility of the growing medium. Change that appears rapid is often based on changes which have been happening in the background over a lengthy period. To take the Trump example, disillusion with the political establishment in the US is surely nothing at all new, and sooner or later it would have ended up finding a channel. The question as to whether individuals cause change or whether they merely ride and channel it is an interesting one in itself - but it would be off-topic here.
Surely self-interest encompasses everything apart from altruism. It's an essential component of motive and motivation. 'Materialistic self-interest', interesting phrase, is but one element, albeit an oft well hidden one. But there are so many more.
As for learning, education, I agree with your notion of implicit superiority. It is good to admire and respect 'the educated', it always has been, for it is education that advances the questioning of pre-exisiting prejudices and perceptions. For example, when I went to school no boy could come out as 'gay' and no 'coloured' person could dream of occupying the White House. For sure it is education that we have to thank for such progress. If only our 'teachers' properly understood their role in society, teaching in all its forms is a vocation, for the best 'teachers' it always has been and always will be. I could go on but, like you, I don't want to go off topic.
Finally, as you rightly say, disillusionment abounds and especially so disillusionment with matters political. But normally such is contained and restrained, everyday life gets in the way, there isn't the time or energy to blow the lid off. But when someone has the time and when someone has the energy the bubbling water underneath is plain for all to see. That's why people like Trump chime. The question is does he chime just for today or does he chime for tomorrow as well?
ps. I actually think we do agree with each other .......... but because we come at it from different angles we sometimes aren't sure.
"Surely self-interest encompasses everything apart from altruism" If you want to view everything through the prism of self-interest, then even what appears to be altruism can be based on self-interest as well - ask any evolutionary biologist. But the point is that if any and every behaviour can be interpreted as being based on self-interest, the interpretation ceases to be of any practical value.
One of the problems with people who post as Anon rather than using their own name, or even a unique pseudonym, is that I can never be entirely certain that I'm following the thread of a single person. But assuming that you are the same anon as the one who made an earlier comment, then you've started off saying that people will only ever support something if it reflects their own immediate self-interest (" People vote 'for' a reasonable expectation of a better standard of living. And people vote 'against' anything that is likely to get in the way of an anticipated improvement in standard of living"), and ended up with a much wider one. I'm a lot closer to agreeing with the much wider one, which implies, in terms of the independence debate, that people have to see some form of self-interest, either for themselves, for their families, for a group of which they are a member, or for the wider world, and that such interest doesn't need to be material or relate directly to standard of living. But since, as far as I'm aware, no-one is proposing anything that would contradict that, it contributes little to debate.
An alternative to "parking the issue (independence) until things ‘get better’ by themselves" is to park it but then build the nation and build the institutions necessary to be a state in the future. You need to built them first otherwise people will never vote for independence.
I am suspicious that the people most demanding of indy don't explain how we would win the election and then the referendum.
Or, if we want a legal system first, or a tax system first, how we conjure that up. By influencing Labour? By forming a government ourselves? By winning more votes? Do we need the votes of people who don't want independence (about half of Plaid's existing vote doesn't want it, yet, while half does- this can be seen in the Yougov results)? Doesn't seem at all like any tendency within Welsh nationalism has a long-term plan.
"An alternative to "parking the issue (independence) until things ‘get better’ by themselves" is to park it but then build the nation and build the institutions necessary to be a state in the future." That's your view, and you're entitled to hold it. Others, myself included, would see it as a cop-out, an excuse for not having any debate about the end goal.
"I am suspicious that the people most demanding of indy don't explain how we would win the election and then the referendum." At it's simplest, it's about convincing people that Wales should be independent. There's a difference here, and a very important one, between 'could' and 'should'. THose who think we shouldn't will always find their excuses as to why we can't. They currently hide between the economic arguments, but do you really believe that, if it could be proved beyond doubt that the economic situation would be better (I know that's actually unprovable, but for the same of argument...) that they would then change their minds? Of course not - they would (a) not believe the figures or (b) find some other excuse.
What has become clear is that all of Wales' parties are more interested in following public opinion than in leading it. They will not advocate independence until they can see that it's something that people want. The obvious conclusion from that is that we need to create that demand for independence outside of the party political process; there needs to be a movement for independence which actually puts and debates the arguments. Leaving it to career politicians amounts to leaving it forever.
We can create all the institutions and processes we want if the will is there, either pre or post independence, - the problem at present is that the will isn't there.
"They currently hide between the economic arguments, but do you really believe that, if it could be proved beyond doubt that the economic situation would be better (I know that's actually unprovable, but for the same of argument...) that they would then change their minds?"
I honestly think that yes, it would change people's minds. Enough to put us in with a shout of winning a referendum. I don't think it's about proving that the economic situation would be better, it's more about the *fiscal* situation. Tax and spend. What would we need to spend in years one, two and three, and what would the projections be. Scotland has those projections already and with the former oil price (one which may well return quite soon) could say they would have the same, or a lower, deficit than the state they were proposing to leave. The projections for Wales will unfortunately be far worse than the UK's deficit.
"What has become clear is that all of Wales' parties are more interested in following public opinion than in leading it. They will not advocate independence until they can see that it's something that people want. The obvious conclusion from that is that we need to create that demand for independence outside of the party political process; there needs to be a movement for independence which actually puts and debates the arguments."
Good point. I do agree with this. There needs to be a movement that raises consciousness without being beholden to elections. It can only help Wales as a nation to have that movement.
But maybe those who think things like pensions and the NHS need answers aren't "copping out". They were big topics in the Scottish referendum, and the SNP could maintain public spending on them (subject partly but not fully to the oil price).
"I honestly think that yes, it would change people's minds. Enough to put us in with a shout of winning a referendum. I don't think it's about proving that the economic situation would be better, it's more about the *fiscal* situation. Tax and spend. What would we need to spend in years one, two and three, and what would the projections be." Any set of figures would be based on assumptions; it has to be. And any assumptions will be open to challenge. There is no such thing as a 'neutral' set of assumptions in this debate.
"Scotland has those projections already" No, it does not. It has a set of figures produced by one side of the debate, and the underlying assumption for those figures are not accepted by the other side any more than are the conclusions drawn from them. And that is a problem which cannot, ever, be overcome. You and I might both think the SNP's assumptions were reasonable and fair, and represent a basis for projecting the future. But you will never get everyone to agree that, bnecause an alternative set of assumptions is always possible.
"... the SNP could maintain public spending on them ..." No. The SNP's figures showed that they could maintain spending on them, but those figures weren't universally accepted. We're back to the same point.
Let me be clear - I'm actually not arguing that we need to do nothing to demonstrate that Wales could be independent. What I'm arguing, rather, is that people's views of and reactions to all of that will depend on whether they are convinced that Wales should be independent. Opinion on the latter colours any willingness to accept the former.
"No, it does not. It has a set of figures produced by one side of the debate, and the underlying assumption for those figures are not accepted by the other side any more than are the conclusions drawn from them"
John, I mean this with complete respect but that is not correct. Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS), despite being a Scottish Govt publication, is broadly accepted by all of the parties represented in the Scottish Parliament (there is some knock about), but more importantly is regarded by the Scottish public and media is being pretty neutral. They are accepted as Scotland's annual accounts on a cross-party basis.
It is reasonable to think that a Welsh equivalent would get some traction as being a realistic set of figures. I completely agree that the figures would have to be scrutinised properly. An alternative set of assumptions is completely possible for a post-independence government, but we would have to say during the referendum campaign what the Welsh version of 'GERS' would show for the next year, i.e what the first independent Welsh Government would inherit.
The idea that an independent Wales could conjure up a totally new set of public finances is completely incorrect in my opinion. It would inherit the previous year's finances.
People's conviction of whether Wales *should* be independent will really rely on the public finances. I think it affects the "could" and "should" of Welsh indy. Tax, pensions, NHS and public sector wages would all be big topics. Indeed they are already. The "aspiration" and "vision" stuff doesn't answer any of this.
I'm far from convinced that GERS is as neutral a set of figures as you suggest. For a bit more on some of the problems and assumptions underlying the figures, there's a useful piece by a Scottish Green here.
GERS is useful in the context of the debate we're having here though, because it illustrates the point that I have been making. When nationalists look at the GERS figures, they see something which 'proves' that an independent Scotland is feasible. When unionists look at the same figures, they see 'proof' that there's a huge black hole in the SNP's figures. The reason for that takes us back to the point of my original posting - we all look at 'evidence' through the prism of our own preconceptions and predispositions.
You seem to have a degree of faith that the main obstacle to independence is that people don't believe it to be feasible, but what I'm saying is that as long as they are predisposed to believe in the unfeasibility of Welsh independence, it doesn't matter what figures you produce, they will be interpreted as supporting that viewpoint. Whilst there will be some people who look dispassionately at the issues and are swayed, one way or the other, by the detail of the figures, I'm convinced that they are a tiny minority of the electorate.
Going back to my core point, I'm not saying that figures are not a useful adjunct to the debate; I'm simply saying that they are not the core of it as you seem to suggest. If people are predisposed to support independence for Wales, the figures may well make the difference between the 'should' and the 'could'. But whilst only around 6% believe the 'should', the figures are largely irrelevant. We need to address the 'should' as well as the 'could'. And that's my frustration in a nutshell - because even many of those claiming to be 'nationalists' don't believe the 'could' themselves, they are unwilling to even present the case for 'should'. But I believe that we need to make the case for the 'should' which is more about taking responsibility for shaping our own future than about mere economics.
John, thanks for this extended conversation. I still think your view is really problematic but I do respect it.
I strongly believe that the main obstacle to independence is the anticipated fiscal situation we would inherit. It's not exactly a great advert for the UK Union either! But obviously you can stay in the UK and not have to face up to it.
I think the majority which currently supports devolution (not that I'm complacent about that persisting) could be won over to independence. Culturally and in terms of making laws in Wales, they are already there and believe we should generally make our own decisions. But independence is that extra and for many, final/ultimate leap, that can only happen after a long process.
I reject your dismissal of the fiscal situation as "mere economics". I honestly mean no offence but it's central to whether people get their wages and pay their mortgage or their rent.
There are some people who would just take the hit and accept severe fiscal restructuring just to be independent. In terms of GERS, the debate could be had about the figures but the vote was narrow because fiscal situation was at least defensible.
I followed your link to the Scottish Greens piece and although you've used the post of an example of GERS being flawed, the author literally uses a graph which shows Welsh revenue per head as being the lowest in the UK. He uses the same graph that shows us being clobbered, to show how well Scotland is doing! It is absolutely nothing to celebrate but the blog post actually reinforces my point about the importance of fiscal issues.
I've always enjoyed a good debate! And I suspect that there's actually quite a lot about which we'd agree.
"the post ... uses a graph which shows Welsh revenue per head as being the lowest in the UK" True, but that's based on the same assumptions which he is analysing.
Perhaps the reference to "mere economics" was a little dismissive. It's not that I don't think that economics is important, more that economics isn't - and never has been - my main driver for wanting independence, and that I don't think that it will be the main driver for others either. It may be - or may be presented as, which isn't quite the same thing - a barrier to independence, but it isn't a driver for.
In essence, my position is that:
1) Any and every set of figures produced will always be open to challenge because figures are always going to be based on assumptions, and we won't all make the same assumptions;
2) Any country can become independent if it wants to - there are economic consequences to independence, but not economic barriers to it - I don't think that most of the countries which have become independent over the years really had as much of a debate about economics as we seem to want to have; they simply took the opportunity, accepted the responsibility, and sorted it (some more successfully than others, of course);
3) The barrier to independence isn't really economics at all, it's a lack of confidence and desire. For sure, uneasiness about the economic consequences may well be part of that lack of confidence, but I'm not sure that it's such a large part in the scheme of things. We have an underlying unwillingness as a nation to believe in ourselves and our own ability; we seem to prefer complaining about others than taking action ourselves;
4) Tackling that is about a lot more than economics. And it's more than this strange thing called nation-building as well. When even many of those claiming to be nationalists are afraid that their arguments don't hold water, what hope of conquering this problem? Gwynfor used to say that Wales would be a free nation when we started behaving like one, and in a sense that's what I'm arguing for. We need to put the case more forcefully, not be afraid of debate or even rejection, and definitely not say that we have to wait until someone else solves the problems for us.
Thanks John, will have to speak to you in person one day!
I'll leave this posting as my final one, by replying to your points.
1) I disagree, some sets of figures can become "trusted" in the public debate. I'm talking OBR and GERS type stuff. In the response to GERS last week all Scottish parties (including the Greens) accept the figures as being an accurate set of accounts. Debating whether the figures are appropriate is really marginal stuff (e.g a blogpost from a Scottish Green- but the Green leader commented on GERS three days ago and implied it accurately showed the problems in the oil industry). If you expect a Welsh referendum where the fiscal scenario isn't the number one issue, you're in dreamland.
2) I don't think any of the examples of recent independence are relevant to Wales. Countries not yet independent, but ahead of us, are the better comparators. In Catalonia and Scotland the economy and the fiscal balance is a central and essential part of the debate about independence. In fact, in Catalonia the fiscal balanace compared to that of Spain is the single decisive factor which made the largest nationalist party switch from autonomy to independence.
3) Fundamentally disagree. The fiscal gap is the biggest reason for the lack of desire. Confidence is more about cultural factors but also includes the lack of confidence in our ability to pay wages after indy.
4) I believe the case is flimsy because of the fiscal situation. It's not even about an argument "holding water" or not. Devolution has given people what they assume to be the best of both worlds. However I think with a change in fiscal balance and more successful devolved governance, confidence would grow. Nation-building would help and shouldn't be dismissed. Being able to say "we've already got a legal system and it's better than England's" would be a feather in the cap and the kind of thing that makes people support independence.
I live in hope anyway. A Welsh legal entity can be achieved. A tax system can be set up as can all kinds of institutions which you'd need to have a Welsh state.
"all Scottish parties (including the Greens) accept the figures as being an accurate set of accounts" I'd just point out, though, that there is a key difference between a "set of accounts" which looks backward at what has happened, and a "budget" which looks forward to what will happen. There are difficulties with both, but it's a great deal easier to agree on the former than on the latter.
I think that the core of our disagreement is whether, and to what extent, the decision as to whether Wales should become independent will be based on analysis of the financial consequences, and whether, and to what extent, it is ever possible to arrive at a 'neutral' financial statement accepted by all. Ultimately, these are both matters of opinion - I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that.
Post a Comment