That's why politicians need to focus on persuasion rather than trying to figure out exactly what their target voters think and then parrot it back. People are open to different arguments! - ThreadSky

samfr.bsky.social • 30 days ago

That's why politicians need to focus on persuasion rather than trying to figure out exactly what their target voters think and then parrot it back.

People are open to different arguments!

Comments

abebourne1.bsky.social•30 days ago

There's surely a valid reason for not encouraging hard up couples, (or single mothers) to have more children. The conundrum is how to help without it being an inducement.

laislabonita.bsky.social•30 days ago

More often than you may think the children already exist when hard times - for a whole host of reasons - come! Please don’t promote this ‘poor people breeding for benefits’ crap.

abebourne1.bsky.social•30 days ago

I'm not, similarly as with winter fuel payments, I think there's a better way to target help to those who need it.

laislabonita.bsky.social•30 days ago

That’s not how it looks.

andysmart1948.bsky.social•30 days ago

Surely making the case for common decency and enlightened self interest is what we hire professional footballers for?

sandypuke.bsky.social•30 days ago

I have to say that I yearn for the days when politicians actually stood for some definite principles, explained what they were and persuaded people to vote for them. Seeing whatever is a popular (mis)conception and pretending you share it just to get votes helps nobody who should be helped.

marccooper.bsky.social•30 days ago

Politicians have become managers. And what they manage is the polling figures – and how they pan out. They no longer tell us a story about where they want to take take us with our votes. The stories they do tell us are those that move the polling figures favourably. But they are just that: stories.

tcanham459.bsky.social•30 days ago

They should focus on reality.

It costs the government £3.5bn per year

And we don't have £3.5bn per year

bthalpin.bsky.social•30 days ago

This is a very important observation: voters are very persuadable and if a progressive Labour Party isn't doing it, the RW press is what is telling them what to think (relentlessly, all the time, and they're very good at it).

johndaledalton.bsky.social•30 days ago

Yes. Leadership is needed, not just populism.

stephenbuggy.bsky.social•30 days ago

I often say that even if you are some absurd capitalist stereotype, children, unlike pensioners, are valuable as future workers and poverty is damaging to that investment. It's hugely inefficient to get the public sector to try to fix the consequences of child poverty rather than preventing it..

neverheardofher.bsky.social•30 days ago

This is the part Labour seem to be bad at. I think they could have won the argument on WFA early on if they’d framed it better as making it means tested so only poor pensioners get it. Then sold it alongside pension rises - ‘we believe pensioners shouldn’t need benefits’.

laislabonita.bsky.social•30 days ago

Erm isn’t that exactly what they did and still do? The problem is their notion of ‘poor’ is wildly out of step wiry reality.

neverheardofher.bsky.social•30 days ago

No i don’t think they did. My parents lost their winter fuel payment but overall their pension is now far higher due to triple lock. They’re better off. I don’t think this has cut through. Most pensioners are better off than before they cut the WFA.

laislabonita.bsky.social•30 days ago

But it is what they constantly cite as defence - heard and seen it said many times -the ‘line to take’ prescription was very strong

laislabonita.bsky.social•30 days ago

IF on full / new state pension. Lots aren’t.

neverheardofher.bsky.social•30 days ago

They should be because overall the rise this year is far higher than the loss in WFA. I agree the threshold should be higher and I think that’s what will happen but I also know many pensioners - my parents included who didn’t need the extra money. I think it should be means tested.

laislabonita.bsky.social•30 days ago

Remember that some of that rise is immediately lost in tax take for many

laislabonita.bsky.social•30 days ago

Given that someone on less the options state pension - and given cost of living issues right now - AND no change in personal allowance - you can still be above pension credit threshold and have darn little to spare. So losing it is a real blow bi matter what the rise was.

officialstehee.bsky.social•30 days ago

Alternatively Politicians could simply decide to do no harm.

kjeldschmidt.bsky.social•30 days ago

Very often, politicians have to decide between what harm to impose and upon whom

officialstehee.bsky.social•30 days ago

No they do not. They can always refuse.

kjeldschmidt.bsky.social•30 days ago

And what harm will that cause on whom? Political decisions are always dilemmas.

simoncito.bsky.social•30 days ago

Well, moral clarity is found much easier by those living in a cognitively simplified landscape.

officialstehee.bsky.social•30 days ago

You know exactly what I am referring to, Politicians making Fiscal Policy decisions that will harm. There is no dilemma to salve their conscience. They choose money over lives.

kjeldschmidt.bsky.social•30 days ago

Money don’t grow on trees. Somebody has to work to be able to pay the taxes. Don’t be childish

wohyeahwohyeah.bsky.social•30 days ago

Not always. That's silly.

kjeldschmidt.bsky.social•16 days ago

Exactly.

jenwilliamsft.bsky.social•30 days ago

God the number of times I’ve thought that over the last few months. Although in order to make the argument you have to know what argument you want to make

samfr.bsky.social•30 days ago

Yeah. Child poverty is bad should be one that Labour don't need to think too hard about!

danielphilips.bsky.social•30 days ago

#SweeneyOut

theglassisempty.bsky.social•30 days ago

How do they make that argument now when everyone will say “if it’s the right thing now it was the right thing months ago”. So why did you not do it?

explaintrade.com•30 days ago

I legitimately want to ask, if you don't think voters are persuadable on the issue of starving children, why are you in politics?

Why would you want to represent people you believe are so (on average) convinced children should starve it's literally impossible to convince them otherwise.

feelingantsy.bsky.social•30 days ago

I’m going out a limb here but I’m guessing Labour is not phrasing the question as “starving children… good or bad?”

sharonm72.bsky.social•30 days ago

People who want benefits cuts don't want to see children starve. They think that benefits disincentivise responsible parenting and that society benefits if parents are more responsible. You have to tackle that if you want to bring them round. Not just keep monstering them

clairebradley.bsky.social•30 days ago

lt's very difficult to be a responsible parent if people can't afford to feed and clothe their children?

sharonm72.bsky.social•30 days ago

But, they will say, why can't they afford to feed and clothe them? Why haven't they got jobs? Why would they ever get jobs if the state gives them free money? Why is it fair that I have to work to afford things and they get theirs paid for by my taxes?

stevepeers.bsky.social•30 days ago

Rashford was certainly persuasive on the point...

amg903.bsky.social•30 days ago

Depends on where we are talking about..

dorsetrachel.bsky.social•30 days ago

I think that the existence of food banks has really masked the seriousness of this issue.

jkaconductor.bsky.social•30 days ago

Nor do I understand the idea that Labour MPs are against child poverty for weird personal reasons rather than because it’s what their constituents elected them to eradicate…

ilcontealmaviva.bsky.social•30 days ago

Yes, it feels like that should be one of the raisons d'être of the party!

alisonwallis.bsky.social•30 days ago

You also need to have something other than a ming vase strategy to governing.

pstafford.bsky.social•30 days ago

Plus you have to have a fair chance of making the argument fully and publicly, given the poisonous environment of much of our media that’s a challenge. Not an argument against trying, but a warning it’s not easy.

jtatlife.bsky.social•30 days ago

At the end of the day as a politician you should believe things and stand for things. The classic example is Thatcher who tended to veer between being 'quite' and 'very' unpopular during her term in office, without being much discouraged from executing on her project.

jtatlife.bsky.social•30 days ago

Thatcher wanted just enough popularity to allow her to enact her project, whereas Starmer wants enact no more project than will allow him to retain popularity.

altreik.bsky.social•30 days ago

It was not a perfect government and it has a lot of myths but the labour movement seems to have forgotten that the 1945 government existed and sought to actually do stuff and then make the argument for it

dlynch.bsky.social•30 days ago

Are you suggesting that someone in a position of leadership should try leading, rather than vacillating wildly based on whatever the last opinion poll or focus group suggests?

It's a thought I suppose.

alexofthew.bsky.social•30 days ago

It's so deeply patronising.

People are individuals, they have many views & many concerns & are not usually entrenched in any particular solution to them... partly because they recognise there is no simple, one-stop solution to them all.

Also it's the politicians' job to find solutions, not voters.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply