I was reminded to blog about Mehdi Hasan's discussion of Labour's economic policy by his recent blog post on how Labour's position on welfare reflected a poor "Framing" of the issues of economic credibility and competence*.
Mehdi's argument in both the original New Statesman article and his subsequent blog post shows the difficultly of separating out a debate about political rhetoric from the policy position which underlies the rhetoric itself.
Labour are, Mehdi argues, trapped by an Conservative frame, in which "cuts and credibility" become the test of political virility, and since this is a battle Labour cannot hope to win, this is a foolish attempt to fight the enemy on their own turf. This creates, he argues a position in which "There is a theme here – the Tories set the agenda, Labour operates within it."
It is perhaps worth comparing this with what is allegedly a strategic phrase of George Osborne: "in opposition you move to the centre, in government you move the centre." I think a fair few Conservatives would look at the journey their party has undertaken over the last five years and question whether they were really setting the agenda until they entered government. Indeed, the whole history of the last century suggests that the conservatives are not notably successful at setting the agenda, but very successful to adapting to newly set agendas (witness Cameron's position on gay marriage.)
Mehdi's argument is that Labour has conceded to a Conservative narrative framework on the deficit, and that since this is a battle Labour cannot win – we cannot "out-austere" the Tories, we are destined to lose this debate, Mehdi prays in aid the work of George Lakoff, saying that it is a great shame that the Labour front bench haven't read Lakoff's "Don't think of an Elephant"**. Now, I have read that book, and also Lakoff's "Moral Politics". Indeed, I was a minor evangelist for his work inside the Labour party, finding it a useful tool to emphasise particular words and themes in copy we were producing.
Tip: If you don't want to buy Lakoff's book, his ex-colleagues at the Rockridge Institute keep PDFs of their practical guide to reframing "Thinking points" here
Lakoff's work is ultimately about the power of language. He believes that particular metaphors, or ways of framing arguments, allow you to make a more persuasive case for that argument.
For example, A conservative should argue for "Public Sector Restraint", not "Cuts". Why? Because Conservatives already have the "Cuts" group bagged up, and need to reassure those who have a bit more of a "nurturing parent" in their make up and fear the pain a cut might bring (I simplify). A progressive on the other hand, should not accept the language of "a Death Tax" because it accepts a Conservative frame. Instead, call attempts to reduce estate taxes a "Paris Hilton Tax break".
To me, this is a powerful -technical- insight. it helps a politician to understand whether they are doing their job, well, or badly. Want to appeal to environmentally minded left wingers about GM crops? Then don't talk science. Talk about the historic mission of ending hunger on our shared planet. Want to sound reasonable and non-threatening while demanding a restriction on Child Benefits? Talk about encouraging a culture of responsibility, not of dependence.
In many ways, it's worth thinking of some of Lakoff's work as a liberal response to Republican strategist Frank Luntz's "Words that Work". Indeed, when looking at the practical application, they often feel like very similar Vade Mecums for political comms professionals***. Further, Lakoff himself will admit that much of his political work was driven by a sense that the Conservatives in America somehow knew how to "Frame", while Liberals and progressives did not.
It is here that I raise my first concern with the use of Lakoff's linguistic approach as a critique of a particular policy agenda. If Lakoff is right that we can use words to appeal to those who disagree with us by constructing a frame in which it is difficult to dissent from, and which then defines the debate in the public sphere, then two things follow:
First, this approach is, in itself, essentially neutral. You should be able to construct a "frame" for any given proposition which maximises its likely appeal.
It doesn't matter whether you are arguing for or against a progressive tax rate, if you can apply the correct linguistic frame to it, you will maximise likely success. Same goes for the deficit. In Moral Politics, Lakoff gives the example of Reagan's approach to the Federal Deficit as an example of how a Conservative can justify high deficits using a moral framing. It should follow, therefore, that a liberal-leftist should be able to successfully promote long term fiscal restraint using similar framing techniques. There should be no policy position that cannot be successfully "framed" by a skillful practitioner.**** In essence therefore, any policy critique based on framing must be incorrect. Any position should be susceptible to skillful framing.
However, my deeper critique is that if both sides take the advice of simply developing the "best frame" for their existing position, there is essentially no interest in the voter at all, merely a competition of framing devices. You end up with a left winger trying to bludgeon a right winger with their superior frame, and the right winger returning fire in kind. The person left out of the debate is the most important – the shifting, variable concerns of the voter.
I believe politicians prosper not when they seek a retrospective linguistic justification for their preferred policy agenda, and seek to impose it on the electorate via strong framing, but when they put the worries and concerns of the sympathetic but unsure elector first, and try to construct their rhetoric around addressing these concerns, first in policy, then in framing terms. (If you cannot find enough potentially sympathetic voters to win you an election, then you probably have a bigger problem than framing to think about).
So for example, Labour might discover that the barrier that prevents a significant number of "open" voters from supporting Labour is a concern about whether Labour will tackle issues of crime. Labour can then develop a policy agenda that demonstrates a firm approach on crimes of particular voter concern, and use these as the framing device to persuade the voter their concerns are unfounded, without undermining our essential policy agenda or image. So an ad for a party perceived as being "Weak" on Crime, might emphasise a focus on strong action on violence against women, and of toughening up the legal threshold for prosecution of sex crimes, or demonstrating that the leader understands why these issues matter. In advertising terms, this is called "overcoming the benefit barrier" – removing the obstacle that stands in the way of a potential consumer desiring the overall benefit your product offers.*****
Now, how does this apply to the debate about the deficit?
At one level, it doesn't at all. After all, the first question about the deficit is not "What frame shall we seek to apply to our plan?" That's a second order question. The first question is "What are we actually going to do. and why?".
While an argument about language is helpful in deciding how to frame a debate, it doesn't in any way help you to resolve the policy tensions that are fundamental to successful governance. Labour is proposing a policy of short term stimulus, long term restraint, not because it fits in within a frame, or because it overcomes a voter benefit barrier, but because we think it is the right thing to do.
Now, if we are wrong about that, this is a whole other debate. But let us accept that it _is_ the right thing to do and that we are not prepared to jettison this for electability, because our overall purpose – a fairer society- is important to us.
We next need to understand what the barrier of key parts of the electorate are to our offering. These are, I think, likely to be along the lines of – "why should we trust you after what just happened, you're profligate with our money, you can't be sure that spending more money will work, you say you'll pay off the debt, but never when".
So, the purpose of the political rhetoric we use should be to overcome those barriers. If they are the ones I have identified, that suggests focus on cheeseparing, on being anti-waste, on the value of state restraint, of being careful with pennies, of setting boundaries for government spending for only productive purposes, for being – to borrow a phase- both "tough on the deficit, tough on the causes of the deficit".
You can frame your policies in this light of this need. So If your policy agenda is one of spending to save, then you come up with specific examples where spending will clearly and measurably reduce expenditure, and emphasise these, rather than assert the vale of spending more generally, If the policy is "spend now, save later", you might need to prove your commitment to the second part of that equation.
This is not "submitting to the frame" of your opponent, but focusing on people who might be interested in the benefits a centre left government offer (for example, more jobs, or a more equal society, or a better run NHS or school system), but who have doubts which leave them unconvinced.
An emphasis on overcoming voter "barriers" through both policy and framing should not undermine your fundamental purpose. In the same way Ariel overcoming concerns about cost or stringency by telling consumers it is not as expensive as they think, or is recommended by Washing machine manufacturers does not imply Ariel is rubbish at washing clothes, then saying Labour is concerned about reducing the deficit over the long term does not imply an abandonment our mission of a fairer, more just society.
Using this approach to overcome barriers voters have erected to voting Labour allows those who sympathise with our aims and hopes to believe we are addressing their fears and doubts. Consider the alternative – often recommended on the centre-left – of trying to somehow distract the attention of the voter from a concern about the deficit, by focusing on some other policy – say jobs and growth. If enough voters regard a lack of commitment to debt reduction as an important barrier, then no amount of well framed distraction is going to succeed, not least because your opponents will surely not neglect propagating doubt in the voters mind. Indeed, by seeking to avoid a focus on the issue which produces the greatest doubt among voters, you may even underline their concerns about you. Imagine if Labour responded to questions on Unilateral Nuclear disarmament in the 80s by simply claiming it wasn't an issue. Or if the Tories decided that public concern over their NHS policies was best dealt with by talking about Europe and immigration (they did try this, with limited success)
If, Instead, we emphasise that we will reduce deficits best by both employing public restraint and encouraging private growth, we frame our policy in the light of voter concerns and worries.
Is this employing someone else's "Frame" to decide your rhetoric?
Yes.
It's applying the frame of the doubtful voter. I reckon they're probably quite important if you want to win elections.
*I await eagerly the publication of "White flag Labour", which has been trailed by Mehdi and Neal Lawson as a brilliant riposte to the sallow collection of Blairite Zombies who have assumed control of the Labour party through the famously pliant puppet of Blairism, Ed Balls.
**The Title is a play on the old game of it being impossible not to think of something you've been told not to think of, as Mehdi notes. It's also a play on the elephantine symbol of the Grand Old Party
*** Luntz's book came after Lakoff's but his direct political influence, over Gingrich and the GOP, came much earlier.
**** There's a danger of this lapsing into the sort of poorly understood NLP stuff that comes dangerously close to bullshit here. Forgive me if I cross the line on that one. I'm not saying you can get people to buy more beer by saying tier name when they walk in the door, or somesuch.
*****When I worked on Daz, one of the benefit barriers was that people thought, since it was cheap, it _had_ to be bad. So proving that Daz buyers were confident enough to show their clothes to the nation helped overcome that barrier. Later, one of the barriers was that Daz was cheap and brash and not something people would be pleased if others new they used, so I see the latest advertising reassures on aspiration by using popular celebs, and stresses things like good fragrance.
Thanks for this very thoughtful and interesting post. I think framing also includes framing 'the policy problem' to be solved and "the deficit problem" is a good example of of a mis-framed problem. It is almost exclusivelt framed as one of 'market confidence', where this is directly related to the size of the deficit. However, "the market", just as with any lender, cares only about whether we can continue to pay the interest. Again as with any lender, this makes them interested in what you use the borrowed money for. That is, is it for productive investment? Or is it shoring up an inefficient system? So whilst I don't doubt that what you say about framing is true, I do think there is a job to be done in reframing the actual policy problem to be confronted and not just the perception of Labour's response.
Kieron,
Agree that there's room to define what the probem actually is. What I do find slightly worrying though is an attempt to "define away" the problem. So, while I agree there's an argument to be made about transforming growth prospects by switching state resources to "producive" spend (and/or tax cuts) this doesn't help in the short to medium term reassure those who might see a focus on this as an attempt to not deal with a big issue. For them, such a move would could be a part of overall economic messaging, but can't be all of it.
Eh?! Certainly not on economic issues over the last 30 years.
Agree with this but there's a step you're missing here. Both debt and lack of growth are equally important right now. A focus on debt means that becomes the priority and its an area the Conservatives can win more easily on – while focusing on jobs and growth puts the Tories at a disadvantage because Labour are seen as stronger on that.
You seem to be under the assumption that the priorities of the electorate cannot be shifted… and that only a focus on the deficit can prevail. But that's not necessarily the case. The Republicans used the debt-ceiling fight to push rising debt as the key issue, while Obama used the payroll tax fight to paint the GOP as out of touch. You seem to assume the electorate's concerns can't be shifted, no?
1) Compare the Uk in 2012 with UK in 1912. Or UK in 1982 with UK in 2012.
Who from the earlier time would say they have "won"? Even Thatcher would look at a world with a higher upper tax rate than she left, which the Tories won' unpick, hugely more spending on public services, more state involvement in industry than for a couple of decades, and a state that has nationalised banks, railways and spends billions on Tax credits.
And on the social-cultural stuff. We have a Tory PM who supported Section 28, who now supports gay marriage.
2) Sorry, I just don't buy that you can just ignore the deficit, if enough voters think it's important.
As for shifting what voters think is important, it's both possible, and not an excuse to believe that you can do so without addressing the concerns voters have.
Want to persuade people that creating Jobs are important to reducing deficits, great. Want to persuade people that jobs are important and so you don't have to answer their question on deficits? Foolish.
Do I think it's possible to persuade some people that the deficit is not such a big issue? Perhaps. It's also dependent on what else is happening in the world. If the economy starts surging, it would be al ot easier. One of the fallacies political types tend to bu is that we are the arbiters of the political weather. If Italy goes under, people will get more frit of debt, no matter what Ed B says.
Given those limitations, ironically, I think it'd probably be easier to persuade people the deficit was of less consequence than they thought if you were identified with a desire to want to cut the deficit hard- Mervyn King could probably get away with it, for example – I certainly don't think the Labour party is in a particularly strong place to convince people not to worry about deficits.
Your last line is unasnwerable and your entire argument is strong Hopi. The only thing that occurs to me is that to take an absolute leftiness of this country as evidencethe"left has won" is perhaps misleading. You could say that the left has lost , more , in this country , than in most comparable European countries and I think a ceratin dream has died along the way. The dream that was in the hope for palaces for all in Labour`s failed post war housing policy .
Won on health and media though … a battle that is not yet over
I get that – I've said the same about immigration (concern goes down after tories get in because people think its being dealt with). But the flip side is also true – concern starts rising on issues they are less strong on (jobs, 'politicians have OUR concerns in mind').
Put it this way. The Tories back Labour spending plans until 2009. Before that, they certainly didn't talk too much about the debt crisis. But once they dropped that pledge – they immediately started focusing heavily on the deficit. The entire Tory machinery did and they relentlessly hammered that message. That impacted polls. And as I said above – politicos on both sides (GOP is in opposition) can use events to trigger public concern about issues. Our job and growth numbers are awful. Labour should be finding a way to highlight that. Instead we're arguing about what we'd cut in 2015. It's fucking depressing.
I think something else happened in 2008/9 that impacted voter concerns on defecit a lot more than Tory media strategy. Ask yourself how much polls would have moved if Tory position had changed but econ situation had not.
Actually It was Labour in 76 With Healey saying we can't have Keynesianism and have to have monetarism that set the ecenomic story So it was labour that set that one up.
Ah… that it explains the ubiquitous use of rather implausible framing. Rather than women quotas, for example, they speak of gendre neutral quotas. The problem with all this is that it requires the listener to be too stupid to think "..That means forcing more women in".
Did the Paris Hilton thing work ? I thought the most important line in that was the one suggesting that ordinary people would be allowed to succeed and pass on success to their children. I think such a sentiment could expect some support in this country.The problem is that it was clear that New Labour wnated to inflate everyone with a house into their nets , and people, who have paid tax already , once, thought that was unfair and too much for the state to have a monolpoly on posterity .
The other box of tricks I notice are the use of various either long or short perspectives to diminuish an opponents point ( for example examining marriage over a thousand years when the context is the tax advantages it might be due now )
Good read though , both your piece and the Lakoff thing , although you could scream at him for his smugness .
It's funny how something like framing – once seen as an exciting, new, subtle & clever – can quickly becomes obvious and tiresome. I've just read Mitch Daniels' SOTU response and apparently Obama's calls for higher taxes on millionaires is 'pro-poverty'….!
indeed – i remember reading some GOP house strategy notes on language/words that work and thinking that's so brilliant (and also kind of evil and orwellian). Now, it's just the way talking heads shout at each other, and I think a really good pol might use the cliche of such language as a device to define themselves against. (As John Mccain used to, in the old days)
…and the only example I've ever encountered of a 'good politician' overtly challenging his opponents framing* is a fictional one - Santos vs Vinick. After some gentle teasing from Vinick about being a liberal Santos retorts:
It can't be beyond some very smart Labour people to do something similar with regard to government in general and public spending. Unfortunately it does seem to be at the moment.
* OK, more a single word than a frame but there are similar ideas at play. Watching Newt & co. I'm amazed that 'progressive' isn't even a contentious word in US politics, it's just a dirty scary one that few want to be associated with.
Politics in a consumer society can be a depressing business. No longer can impassioned orators stir the public imagination as they could sixty plus years ago with talk of building more equal societies because, to judge by my limited experience of humankind gained whilst canvassing on Gloucestershire's doorsteps, the question most floating or non voters seem to ask about any policy these days is "what's in it for me?". I suppose the up side is that people are less likely to be seduced by some dangerously charismatic lunatic peddling an -ism such as fascism or communism.
So political parties must sell themselves using similar techniques to those employed selling motor cars or tellies. Ideological stuff has to be sneaked through as checked-in baggage rather than being flaunted in the hand luggage.
There appear to be few votes in, for example, rescuing half a million children from poverty or from trying to ensure that the cycle of deprivation that afflicts more than six million Britons, that leads to poor children too often becoming poor (in both senses) parents, might one day be broken. So these things will have to be done by stealth while votes are won by promises to make life even better for the fatuously-named squeezed middle even though, by any objective measure, the more aptly named moaning-middle have, to coin a phrase, never had it so good.
You call it framing if you like and it helps you sleep at night but it's marketing…
'Lifting children out of poverty' is the best example of framing I can think of . Actually its just the old taking money from the people who earnt it and giving to the people who did not .
Poverty is defined relatively, another good 'sub frame' ,( so success creates poverty, the reverse of the truth ), and then responsible adults on hand outs, are hidden behin children they chose to have but could not afford. If the rest of us went to the boss and asked for rise on the basis of having had a kid we would get a horse laugh , although there was once a family man premium , they say.
Children cannot be held responsible for the choices their parents make so there is some truth in the language . but I doubt Labour would accept they were shoving children into poverty by supporting the long overdue benefit cap.
Why not call teacher's pensions ,stealing from children. That is exactly what it is , both now and in the future . The education budget is not infinite and they don`t make any money for the pot .. parasites !
Yes think of the deficit, just don’t obsess on it.
Of course policy is more important than framing, but framing is where you put the emphasis.
You are unlikely to convince people that you are more of a deficit hawk than the people who obsess on the deficit, you just don’t share the frame where thye defidcit becomes the driver of economic policy to the exclusion of everything else.!
You certainly don’t share the frame which says the poor should contribute more to the deficit than the rich !
But on the issue of the deficit, growth is a better way of addressing the deficit than austerity.
And if you are in what Anthony Painter frames as the ‘no turning group’, we don’t even think the deficit is that much of a big deal.
http://labourlist.org/2012/01/the-lefts-new-divides/
“The argument is clear, uncompromising, and assertive.” Not something you hear about our ‘Dear Leader’.
.
There is more than one way to skin a cat, so don’t obsess on the skinning but on the result, a skinned cat.
The deficit will be reduced, or the deficit doesn’t matter, or both, and the consequences will be better with a different approach (a different frame). What matters is ‘Jobs and Growth.’
“If, Instead, we emphasise that we will reduce deficits best by both employing public restraint and encouraging private growth, we frame our policy in the light of voter concerns and worries.”
Almost, why private growth, and why concede the need for restraint.
There are more important things in life than the totally artificial deficit, and growth is growth! People matter more than money, and the rich can afford the burden better than the poor..
Your framing accepts the premise that the deficit is the most important issue. It is not it is a distraction from the real business of government, leave it to the bean counters, who don’t matter anyway.
Any full frame is better than half a frame.