How should we think about the Labour leadership election? If we want to go beyond a vapid personality contest, here’s one way - to use a simple Venn diagram.
Historically - and still today - the Labour party has faced a three-fold task: to find policies which are egalitarian (in some conception), economically efficient (in some way), and electorally popular. In his youth, David Miliband edited a book suggesting just some possibilities here.
But there are - and always have been - conflicts between these three criteria*. This is represented in my Venn diagram. Some policies are egalitarian but not popular or efficient, for example, a tax and benefit system that perfectly equalizes incomes. Others are egalitarian and efficient but not popular (area B in my chart): I’d argue that a citizens basic income and policies to promote workers’ control are in this category. And so on.
From this perspective, the leadership contenders face two challenges:
1. What policies fall into area D - that is, are efficient, egalitarian and popular? The difficulty here is that these policies are like low-hanging fruit. Many of them (state pensions? The NHS?) have already been implemented. What others are there? I’d look at the work of James Heckman, who shows the importance of interventions in a child’s early development. Policies along these lines are efficient (they increase skills); egalitarian (they can improve the life chances of the very worst off if done properly; and popular (help with child care!). It's possible, though, that I've misdrawn the diagram and that area D is in fact an empty set.
2. Is it possible to move the circles to create a greater overlap? If Andy Burnham’s talk of “aspirational socialism” has any substance, it might be as an effort to redefine egalitarianism to give it more overlap with popularity and/or efficiency.
However, another option is to shift the popularity circle. Sadly, however, the leadership contenders seem to think that vague talk about reconnecting with the electorate is sufficient here. It’s not. The question is not: what individual‘s ego can move the circle, but what mechanisms might do so? I would think along the lines of building client groups here - of asking: how can we ensure that more people perceive it to be in their interest to support policies that are (somehow) egalitarian and efficient. This is a huge question, which touches upon cognitive biases as well as policy design. And I’m not sure it’s being asked, let alone answered.
* And of course, within them because different conceptions of equality conflict. But let's keep things simple.
Historically - and still today - the Labour party has faced a three-fold task: to find policies which are egalitarian (in some conception), economically efficient (in some way), and electorally popular. In his youth, David Miliband edited a book suggesting just some possibilities here.
But there are - and always have been - conflicts between these three criteria*. This is represented in my Venn diagram. Some policies are egalitarian but not popular or efficient, for example, a tax and benefit system that perfectly equalizes incomes. Others are egalitarian and efficient but not popular (area B in my chart): I’d argue that a citizens basic income and policies to promote workers’ control are in this category. And so on.
From this perspective, the leadership contenders face two challenges:
1. What policies fall into area D - that is, are efficient, egalitarian and popular? The difficulty here is that these policies are like low-hanging fruit. Many of them (state pensions? The NHS?) have already been implemented. What others are there? I’d look at the work of James Heckman, who shows the importance of interventions in a child’s early development. Policies along these lines are efficient (they increase skills); egalitarian (they can improve the life chances of the very worst off if done properly; and popular (help with child care!). It's possible, though, that I've misdrawn the diagram and that area D is in fact an empty set.
2. Is it possible to move the circles to create a greater overlap? If Andy Burnham’s talk of “aspirational socialism” has any substance, it might be as an effort to redefine egalitarianism to give it more overlap with popularity and/or efficiency.
However, another option is to shift the popularity circle. Sadly, however, the leadership contenders seem to think that vague talk about reconnecting with the electorate is sufficient here. It’s not. The question is not: what individual‘s ego can move the circle, but what mechanisms might do so? I would think along the lines of building client groups here - of asking: how can we ensure that more people perceive it to be in their interest to support policies that are (somehow) egalitarian and efficient. This is a huge question, which touches upon cognitive biases as well as policy design. And I’m not sure it’s being asked, let alone answered.
* And of course, within them because different conceptions of equality conflict. But let's keep things simple.
awesome post.
Of course the tactic of building client groups that will support your favored policies is open to abuse. Do we have any politicians you'd trust to play that game?
Posted by: Luis Enrique | July 22, 2010 at 02:09 PM
'Of course the tactic of building client groups that will support your favored policies is open to abuse.'
Indeed, if you listen to some on the right (e.g., Heffer), you'd think it had already happened. The allegation being that Labour created a 'client state' through expanding welfare entitlements and the public payroll. I've heard Labour people defend benefits stretching up to the middle classes on the basis that it aligns middle class interest with that of the working classes.
Equally, the Tories are talking about similar things the other way up: if you make Britain more open to business, then more people will be employed in the private sector and small businessmen are more likely to vote Tory, etc.
Truth is, both sides do it, but neither side can be terribly effective at it, because they get turfed out sooner or later.
Posted by: Philip Walker | July 22, 2010 at 02:34 PM
Is the NHS really efficient in the sense that there is no better institutional arrangment possible that will provide health care to all?
Posted by: Jimmy Hill | July 22, 2010 at 02:39 PM
@ Luis - thanks. I'm not sure the creation of client voters is necessarily a problem. It depends upon the value of the policies used to create them. If, say, a government provides great education for low-incomes kids, this would give their parents a good reason to vote for it. But would this really be so bad?
@ Jimmy - I doubt if there's a single institution in the world which is the best possible one. I was thinking of the NHS as distinct from the US system, which is twice as expensive for no obvious better health outcomes.
Posted by: chris | July 22, 2010 at 06:06 PM
@ chris - It's certainly true that there is no perfect institution. However, I asked whether there is a better possible institutional arrangement.
I take your point on the US system, but why is the US the correct comparative system? Wouldn't the social insurance system used by many European nations be a better source of comparison, or even the personal health accounts used in Singapore (although I am aware there there has been virtually no academic assessment of the health account system)?
This all works on the assumption that if something is possible in Europe or Singapore it is possible to implement in the UK. Due to public choice concerns I'm not convinced this is the case.
Posted by: Jimmy Hill | July 22, 2010 at 09:48 PM
"If Andy Burnham’s talk of “aspirational socialism” has any substance, it might be as an effort to redefine egalitarianism to give it more overlap with popularity and/or efficiency. "
...by watering down the actual egalitarianism!
(Chortle)
Posted by: Paul Sagar | July 23, 2010 at 12:29 AM
Is it not a quadrilemma: the fourth being the party's orientation towards the ruling capitalist class? Does the potential for community organising and new social media end the need for trickle-down politics (prawn cocktail offensives, meetings with Murdoch, etc.)
Posted by: Oranjd | July 23, 2010 at 02:38 AM
Chris,
no, that wouldn't be so bad. But that wouldn't be an abuse. By abuse I mean creating client groups merely to secure political support.
Posted by: Luis Enrique | July 23, 2010 at 09:35 AM
You need a fourth set to the diagram: Achievable By Labour. This set is unfortunately going to be rather small, because Labour contains mostly ambitious and political Socialists, who generally tend to share the delusion that they all know better than anyone else.
This delusion is the principal belief of most Socialists, and is the single most limiting tenet in the whole Socialist philosophy. Because they cannot really accept that a system that isn't controlled by them can out-perform one that is controlled by them, they miss out on efficient systems such as market-based solutions and self-organising Capitalistic ones, and tend instead towards systems which confiscate wealth from the better off and try to redistribute it according to their own tenets.
As Margaret Thatcher famously said, Socialists eventually run out of other peoples' money, at which point their entire system comes crashing down since the one thing Socialism is not good at is running on very little cash input.
Posted by: Dan H. | July 27, 2010 at 02:45 PM