Daniel Finkelstein thinks Brown should go to the polls. I’m not so sure.
Dear Daniel Finkelstein,
Talking about Coca-Cola in the context of the future of our economy throughout your Times column this morning was a little ‘outside the box’. While your logic is reasonably sound in terms of rational political thought, I’m still not sure that you have grasped Gordon Brown’s perspective on an early election. I am not saying that you are categorically wrong by any means. It’s just that Gordon Brown doesn’t think in the same way as everyone else – in fact, I’m not convinced that he thinks at all most of the time.
Your ‘fizzy drink’ analogy is as follows: about ten years ago Coca-Cola developed a vending machine that monitored the weather. The idea was to sell cans for more when it was a hot day. The weather monitors ensured that on days when the machines were most likely to run out of drinks, cans were sold to those who placed a higher value upon them. Even though the same logic applied to offering different prices to people booking airline seats at different times, the public don’t always show a consistent reaction – they were not impressed by Coca-Cola’s behaviour but they never complain about airline seats. You think this inconsistency was because of the way Coke allowed its proposition to be framed in terms of screwing as much money out of people as they could, instead of saying ‘drinks would be cheaper on days when it was cold outside’.
Your argument is that this ‘loss aversion’ is justification for Brown calling an election, “because people are loss averse, they are least inclined to take risks when a loss is in prospect. When a loss has already been incurred, they are more willing to take risks in the hope of making a gain. So if you want to run an election campaign arguing that it is no time for a novice, no time to take risks, you want to hold it while losses are still in prospect.” You further suggest that this came to pass in 1992, when the economy was still in poor shape and further losses were in prospect, yet the Conservatives won against Neil Kinnock. In 1997, when the economy was going well, Labour thrased the Conservatives with the slogan “things can only get better”. I agree with you that the economic “crisis has intensified a feeling that the Tories might be on the side of the rich in a downturn, while Labour will be on their side” and this may represent some form of loss aversion. I still don’t think it’s enough for Brown.
I expect the economy to be a miserable place in 2009. The recent job losses and big retail victims mark the beginning, not the end, of this crisis. Your suggestion that it is better to go to the polls when things are good is perfectly sensible. Gordon Brown is not perfectly sensible. The threadbare Queens Speech gives a clear indication that Brown is contemplating a Spring election and saving all the juicy bits for an election manifesto. However, we all know what happened last time Brown thought about having an election. The moment the polls started to look shaky, he backed out because he couldn’t be sure about the outcome (despite what he said afterwards about being certain of victory). Brown is a coward by nature and is totally unable to relinquish his Stalinist grip on anything. What’s more, he will convince himself that what he’s been telling us about being ‘the right man for the job’ and ‘getting on with the job’ blah blah blah is actually true. Things will be bad in Spring 2009 but he will convince himself that he can make things right, that he was born to lead this country, that he is the right man for the job, that with him in charge he can turn things around given another 12 months and be elected back into office. Yes, he is that delusional.
When you have a cautious man in power, he traps himself with his way of thinking. If the polls are pretty close in the Spring, he will convince himself that he can eek out a big lead if he has one more year in charge. If the polls show Labour marginally ahead, he will convince himself that he can eek out a bigger lead if he has one more year in charge. He is so blind to the reality of how the public sees him that he only stumbles across solutions by luck rather than design. His blustering about mortgage rescue plans and VAT cuts will have had no effect by next Spring and he will convince himself that given more time, things will get better for him and the economy. This is the scale of idiocy and delusion we are talking about and with all due respect, I think you have underestimated this in your column this morning. Your analysis is compelling, but not compelling enough for Brown.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
I want Brown to go to the polls – in fact I want David Cameron to propose a motion of no confidence. He won’t win, thanks to Labour’s majority, but that’s not the point. The point is to fight the destruction of our democracy. The time to do it was amid the anger following the Damian Green affair.
I don’t think Brown will call an election of his own volition. I think he’s too risk-averse when it comes to his personal ambitions – which is ironic since he’s so risk-happy when it comes to our money. The only likely outcome is for Brown’s majority to be reduced – either to a hung parliament or a very tiny Conservative majority. I doubt he could strengthen his position through an election. Therefore he won’t do it.
Of course, that’s also a brilliant reason for the Conservatives to want him to do it, but that doesn’t seem to be the prevailing thinking among Tories.
I like your creative thinking. If Brown gets up a head of steam, Cameron should start playing mean and a vote of no confidence would really capture the public’s imagination. If he does that around February time, it could really hurt Brown.
I still can’t shake off the black feeling that Brown may not call an election at all. Ever. Spot of terrorism, maybe some violent disorder as the jobless total rises and there we go, an excuse for a national emergency in which it wouldn’t be possible to hold a free and fair election necessitating our Gordo to bravely soldier on as PM. Indefinitely. I really hope its just a nightmare!
I certainly hope it’s just a nightmare. A national emergency would be a disaster for the Conservatives, as it always boosts support for the party in power.
[...] Via A. Tory [...]
Up to a point Lord LFAT, but I see no mention of Mandy in your analysis.
People seem to have forgotten that Brown hates Mandy and does not trust him at all. Mandy might tell him to go to the polls but Brown won’t believe everything he is told, seeing as Mandy is only looking after his own career.
Even if Brown wins the elections, I doubt that the party infighting and backbench revolts would suddenly die down. The Blairites aren’t finished yet.
The Goblin King understands risk-aversion and ‘public choice theory’ down to a T.
He has basically promised to bail out everybody using everybody else’s money (homeowners, businesses, welfare claimants, millions of superfluous public sector workers – that’s one hell of a consistuency). That’s why Nulab are (allegedly) 9% ahead of the Tories in the polls on the specific question ‘who is best to steer us through recesssion’. And miraculously, all this Nulab largesse will be paid for with an extra 5% tax on very high earners.
TGK might be stupid, but he understands that most voters are even stupider. And the Tories’ response to all this has been pathetic, and when they do speak up they completely contradict themselves all the time.
You’re right Mark. To return to one of my pet hates, Tax Credits which are designed to create a pliant client-class of people dependent on the state by taking money off people (tax) and then giving it back to them if they behave in ways nuLab approves of (having children, working in Tesco). This whole financial bailout isn’t about Keynesian fiscal stimuli or ‘pump-priming’, its about making vast swathes of people and organisations dependent on the state in ways they simply haven’t been before.
This dependency will, they hope, become habitual so that people can only vote Labour as they are the party that will maintain their infantilised lifestyles while they’ll become afraid that the Tories may ask them to do something (like work harder or start a business or take personal responsibility).
The planning is going on now..the polls are narrowing..the BBC is onside.Things are going really badly but somehow a spirit of getting through this is in the air.
I have reversed my position from “there is no possibility” of a spring election to 50/50.
But I agree that if he cannot see a win with a margin of 30+ seats he won’t go at all. He will need the safety margin to convince him that the risk of losing is small.
In many ways we should hope he calls an election and wins it with a feeble majority. Then let him try on the unbelievable 70’s style public spending straitjacket on for size, that he has created for the 10’s decade
Aha, so that’s how you did it.
I think Finkelstein’s analysis is spot on, but if Brown wants to call an election before the pain hits home, the time for that is, umm, last Autumn.
Stu – “I think he’s too risk-averse when it comes to his personal ambitions – which is ironic since he’s so risk-happy when it comes to our money. Well, that would make sense to a point. Careful with his own salary prospects, wanton with everyone else’s….
Shaun – that nightmare scenario worries me, too. If we get close, it will be time to stock up on pitchforks, walking boots, and maps of Whitehall.
Shaun, that’s a very enlightening way of looking at it. Take the new mortgage rescue plan (that we haven’t actually had explained yet, but anyway): people become reliant on the state, people become grateful for the free money that they don’t deserve, people thank Labour by voting for them.
This malaise will tear our society apart as the gap between those who take responsibility and those who reject responsibility grows wider.
This malaise will tear our society apart as the gap between those who take responsibility and those who reject responsibility grows wider.
Yes. That’s the goal. Responsible people want their freedom to decide how to live. Infantilised people do as they are told because they don’t know any better and have come to expect the paternalist state to do all the awkward stuff for them, especially (eventually) their thinking.
And the tragic thing is that by incentivising the rejection of responsibility, you actually make it rational to do so. How can anyone oppose something that, on the face of it, is rational?
I like ‘eek’ ! That sounds just about right
…