Michael Green is not just the ‘alter ego’ of Grant Shapps, whose personal image continues on its ‘slow burn’ after a mass of ridiculous stories concerning his business activities. Michael Green is the name of a top Carlton Communications figure, known to be a personal friend of David Cameron, like Andrew Cooper, the founder and strategic director of the Populus voting initiative.
There are many problems with polling as a way to make policy. Not least, it can produce results which are at odds with domestic and European law, such as repeal of the Human Rights Act, encouraging a swop for fundamental employment right in share ownership, or ‘bash a burglar’. The further problem is that the results themselves can be intrinsically unreliable on public policy grounds; such as the vast majority of survey respondents in the Sun who believe that the death penalty should be re-introduced. Furthermore, it is generally acknowledged that in politics the whole is more than the sum of its constituent parts; therefore the ‘gestalt’ of the policy must overall make sense. However, data-driven policy is attractive from an ‘efficiency’ aspect of the operations management of politics; money can be spent in producing data, which can be number-crunched, to act as the input for a speech-writer. The impact of the delivery of the speech written by Clare Foges and colleagues can then be ascertained through further polling, in a ‘feedforward’ mechanism of feedback control.
The idea of ‘strivers’, as Isabel Oakeshott points out, sounds like the product of a computer cluster analysis of polling data (though she did not phrase it in such statistical words.) The concept of strivers does not make sense if you consider that members of the Conservative Party also wish to cut non-employment benefits, the economy has been imploding under the direction of George Osborne since May 2010, parts of the government wishes to take away basic legal rights (such as human rights or employment) which would protect and enhance the wellbeing of a ‘striver’. Oh – that’s another aspect of data-driven policy which doesn’t make sense; how can you pursue an agenda of happiness and wellbeing, when you wish to impose austerity and swingeing cuts that is doing much short-term damage to the economy and much long-term damage to society?
It has been interesting to watch how the mainstream and blogosphere have responded to ‘single issue’ politics. It is perhaps true that general polling data do not give a helpful picture of the value of disability issues to non-disability voters, but Sonia Poulton’s articles have had a genuine captive audience. On welfare, Kaliya Franklin was even shortlisted for this year’s coveted Orwell Prize, and her friend and fellow campaigner for disability issues, Sue Marsh, has had a remarkable impact in breaking the ‘glass ceiling’ of this topic which previously had barely been addressed. Likewise, Dr Eoin Clarke, in the blogosphere, has been addressing with considerable bravery previously taboo issues of potential conflicts of interest and the implementation of the NHS Act, which would be felt by most reasonable people to be issues of public interest. Mainstream media may of course be frightened to tackle the complex issues of the Health and Social Care Act, or simply do not understand them, but it is noteworthy that the Daily Mail has recently, and successfully, embarked on a campaign against A&E closures.
That Hunt has decided to frame the argument as ‘modernisation’ of the NHS, which Andy Burnham MP, had started is indeed interesting. David Cameron hardly mentioned the NHS in his speech, which perhaps does reflect the polling data. Recent estimates have provided that the Labour Party is indeed around 30% ahead on the NHS, ‘can be trusted with the NHS’ and so forth. On the other hand, there has always been ambivalence about Labour’s record in public spending, despite the fact that this double-dip recession was directly caused by the policy of the Conservatives, and that George Osborne MP in opposition had promised to meet the spending commitments of Labour, a fact which has conveniently forgotten with his Liberal Democrat accomplices.
Danny Finkelstein has previously warned that the Conservatives should not put all their eggs in the austerity basket. The austerity plan has of course been utterly discredited, with the economy going into reverse under the Conservative-led government, and the Financial Times recently warned that due to the ongoing problems austerity would have to continue until 2018 at least. The austerity agenda could be another ‘single issue’ which might cause pain for Ed Balls and Ed Miliband, if members of the public sector continue to ‘feel the pain’ in the relative absence of a Labour government wishing to tax heavily the top 1% of earners.
Voters are likely to produce a decision on a combination of factors, and certainly predicting this less than three years ahead of a general election is not easy. Whilst ‘Bigotgate’ probably did not lose Gordon Brown the 2010 election, though it might have been representative of a confusion on Labour’s part in understanding the aspiration of voters in an immigration context, certain issues can seem to prove fatal. It is perhaps significant that the poll tax debacle was necessary and sufficient in toppling Thatcher, but it is also significant perhaps that the Conservatives went on to win the 1992 general election. That was the last election they actually won, as many members of Labour will remind you.
