-
Look at the collapse in support for an increase in National Insurance to pay for the NHS backlog. In August this was a very popular policy - two thirds of people supported it, when it didn't really look like it was going to happen:
Thats a bit of a bad example imo. People turned on it because it was an utterly shambolic idea. Even Conservative ministers shied away from what was essentially an attempt to get low paid workers paying more tax to help elderly property owners pass on an inheritance to their families. It lost popularity because it was an epically unfair and bad idea.
Stonehedge-
Oh it was awful. I think the reason I like it is as an example is because it was an awful policy when it had majority support, too. My journey with it is pretty typical of us lefties I imagine:
- august: yes, any change to any tax to fix the NHS is justified and I am in favour of it on general principle
- hang on, maybe NI isn't the best one for this:
- what do you mean it only applies to workers
- what do you mean it unfairly penalises the low paid and young
- what do you mean it puts additional burdens on those who have borne the main brunt of covid
- sept: alright lads lets look at a different tax to do this
My principle hasn't changed. I still want the NHS to be well funded. But my journey with this policy reflects I think a lot of the journeys people go on with these kinds of policies. In general they sound great. When we find out more about them, we find out more of their problems.
- august: yes, any change to any tax to fix the NHS is justified and I am in favour of it on general principle
ReekBlefs
I think I can help here. You're right, left wing policies are extremely popular when they're passive (should we raise more money for the NHS?). But as soon as they're made tangible (we will be raising money for the NHS from YOU), they suffer from 'real world' wilt.
Look at the collapse in support for an increase in National Insurance to pay for the NHS backlog. In August this was a very popular policy - two thirds of people supported it, when it didn't really look like it was going to happen:
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/two-three-support-increasing-national-insurance-social-care-reform-or-reduce-nhs-backlog
Within a month - and the ever increasing likelihood that it would actually happen - that support had wilted to 33%:
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1435600668711075840
The people who changed their minds aren't evil. They're not selfish. They just thought about it a bit more. They moved a policy in their minds from the general to the personal - from 'should we do this' to 'how will it affect me if we do this - how will it help, how will it hinder, how much will it affect my ability to put food on the table'. This is the difference between thinking about a policy in general terms vs thinking about it in personal terms. We have to do both.
You might dislike Starmer but I think we can both agree he's a pragmatist who wants to win elections. If there was a simple, easy way to come up with a set of policies which were universally popular with everyone, he would take it. That he isn't pursuing left wing policies isn't proof that he's a monster, its proof that (to this best of his knowledge) doing so will not increase his chances of winning an election.
With love I think this is the trouble with factionalism. I did the same thing with Corbyn. 'Why can't he just back Remain' I'd say, 'the membership are all in favour of it, and it's the right thing to do, the man's a liar and a hypocrite and a coward'. It's that cartoon image of him I had in my head which prevented me from seeing the very real electoral calculus he was attempting to balance by NOT coming out in favour of Remain. It's very clear to me from the other side of the fence now - but I know when we don't feel listened to it's much easier to believe a cartoon version of our political counterparts not only exists but also runs the damn party.