Listening to the radio yesterday I heard another minister try to explain how the Government isn’t planning to cut public spending. The argument, which goes something like this: “Because of the recession we’ve brought forward Capital investment intended for 2011 to 2008 which means that we’re still increasing investment by the same amount overall”
Everyone else’s argument is “They’re cutting investment by 10%! It’s right there in their figures!”
Who’s going to win? If in doubt, the simplest argument is usually the one that convinces the most people – this doesn’t bode well for Labour. The complexity of their argument looks far more like they’re doing little more than spreading a bit of fear, uncertainty and doubt about what the opposition is saying – knowing full well that only a tiny minority are going to look at the actual Budget report then do the maths themselves.
It’s worth remembering Labour has form on this sort of thing – the 10p tax removal turned out to hurt rather a lot of people, a fact that Brown refused to accept for month. In that case their argument was, again, a complex explanation of benefits and tax credits whereas the opposition said, “these people will be worse off by X.” The simplest argument won there, too.
Ian Clenshaw said...
9 Jul 09 at 9:36 am
Labour are trying to make it sound plausible that they won’t be cutting spending after the election. In reality they will have no choice, but they don’t want the public to know that just yet, because it would undermine their strategy of portraying the Tories as the slash-n-burn party.
Like the ID cards, which they say they have no plans to make compulsory, but which we all know will become so.
Mark Reckons said...
9 Jul 09 at 9:56 am
I did a post about exactly this principle a while ago and I agree. Sometimes it is infuriating that the simplest argument wins but it is usually the case and Labour have found themselves on the wrong side of this one.
Maybe Brown thinks he can bore everyone into submission with his incessant tractor production statistics but I think he is wrong on this because what he is doing looks blatantly dishonest.
Joe Otten said...
9 Jul 09 at 12:16 pm
The whole thing leaves me cold. Does bringing spending in one category forward – so that it goes up and then down – count as a cut (when it goes down) or not? Who cares? I mean really what on earth does it matter whether that is called a cut or not? We might as well get all upset over whether Pluto is a planet or not.
When are people going to start debating what is wrong with the figures, rather than how to describe them!
patently said...
10 Jul 09 at 8:58 am
Experience also has an effect.
Yes, there are some people that will only understand the simple argument, so will dismiss the complex one. Others, however, are willing and able to consider the complex argument, but while doing do so they will bear in mind their past experience of the person making the argument. This is relevant becuase a simple argument generally sounds like it may be true – it has a plausibility to it. A complex argument starts out with a plausibility hill to climb; complexity can generally arise through either the inherent complexity of the situation or the desire of the speaker to conceal and mislead. The people who are willing and able to consider a complex argument are the very ones who are aware of this.
So when you have a simple argument by someone who is generally trusted, vs a complex argument by someone who no-one trusts, it is pretty clear which will win. And that, above all else, is why it is important to remain honest and truthful.
Bill Quango MP said...
10 Jul 09 at 6:27 pm
O/t but re your earlier post
the “new” citizenship test is up for your attempt.
New citizenship test