[Politics (yes, again)] The rise of extremism.

[davywavy]

I've recently been reading Stuart Sutherland's excellent book Irrationality. I'd recommend it. It's a look at how our assumptions and prejudices are usually pretty much wrong and if you want to acheive good decision making it's always a good idea to look at statistical analyses rather than relying solely upon your own brain.
One section of it which really caught my eye was on elections, voting behaviour and decision making. You see, I'd always rather blithely assumed, in a smug educated middle-class sort of way, that when it came to things like understanding issues and being informed about the policies of political parties and their effects upon life the best people at that would be people like you and me, dear readers. i.e smug educated middle-class folks. In that it turned out I was dead wrong.
I spend a lot of time reading about and investigating politics and I'd always assumed that others did something pretty similar, but it appears not. Instead, as a general rule, during elections the people who are best informed as to the policies of political parties and the effects they will have are the people at the bottom of the heap; the poorest. I was surprised but when when you stop and think about it that makes sense, as even marginal differences in social and economic policy will have the greatest relative effects upon their lives and so it is in their interest to be up to speed on what those policies actually are. People are acting in their own self-interest, really.

I got me to thinking about this in the light of the recent results in the European elections and the shock many people felt about the election of a few BNP members. Looking at the results it seemed pretty clear that the Conservatives lost a lot of their traditional voters to the UKIP, and Labour lost theirs to the BNP; if you're unconvinced, take a look at the historic election returns in the wards where the BNP made gains and tell me which parties lost out to them. You can do that here and here. I've seen some people in the media and on LJ suggest that it's teh ev1l Toriezz voting with the nasty racists, but the evidence shows that where the BNP was elected Labour lost seats whilst the Conservatives and LibDems maintained their share of the electorate in those wards, by and large.
A glance at the YouGov poll taken in concordance with the European elections offers some key insights as to who backed them, and why. Nationally, professional workers outnumber manual by 20 per cent to 18 per cent. Among BNP voters the proportion is 11 per cent professional to 36 per cent manual workers. 61 per cent of BNP voters are male. A third read the Sun or Daily Star, compared with just a fifth of the country at large, and only 6 per cent read the upmarket Guardian, Times, Telegraph etc. The average BNP voter’s wage is below the national average. They are, essentially, what once formed the backbone of traditional Labour support.

It's very easy to demonise views and belief systems with which one does not agree, and it's also very easy for lazy thinkers to accuse any attempt to understand those views as being in some way condoning them; look at the time Cherie Blair said she understood why the Palestinians were detonating themselves. She didn't say she condoned or agreed, just expressed understanding, but this was still seized upon and she was forced to make a ritual political apology. However, if we are to stop people acting in a way we find abhorrent or unacceptable, it is important to understand why they're doing it in the first place. As Sun Tzu observed in the Art of War almost two and a half thousand years ago, Know your enemy, know yourself, and you shall not be defeated in a thousand battles. As such, I decided to look into why people felt that the BNP were a sufficiently attractive prospect to start electing them. What I found was interesting.
The fast reaction of many to the prospect of people voting BNP is that this was done out of stupidity or ignorance, but if Sutherland (above) is correct, then this simply cannot be the case. If the poorest are the best informed on issues, and they're the ones voting BNP (i.e. the Labour party's core vote deserting them), then they must be doing so for reasons which seem to them to be both rational and most importantly in their own interest. I had no idea what those reasons are, so plainly there was something going on here that I wasn't aware of.

The primary claim of the BNP is, simply, that 'They're coming over here and taking all our jobs". It's the age-old cry of the knee-jerk reactionary - all we need is for them to add "And women" and it'll be like an episode of Love thy neighbour. This has always struck me as suspect; at the height of the boom back in 2005, Gordon Brown claimed that an additional 2.2 million jobs had been created in the British economy. Even assuming a certain amount of political hyperbole here, anything like that number of created jobs would have had a remarkable effect upon the unemployment figures, and so my next step was to check that out.
The Department of Work & Pensions (DWP) keeps figures of people classed as 'out of work and claiming benefits'. That is, the total number of unemployed and not just the ones claiming the dole or whatever it's called this week. Ever since the convenient political charade of shoving the long-term unemployed onto the incapacity benefit register was started in the late 1980's, this total figure has been the one to watch and investigating that led me to this remarkable chart:


In spite of all the 'new jobs' having been created in the last decade, unemployment in the UK has remained steady. In fact, at no point in the last decade has the number of people out of work and claiming benefits dropped below five million. This took me aback. We've just lived through the greatest economic boom in recorded human history, but in spite of that and all the untold billions spent, sure start places, initiatives, targets and training schemes, UK unemployment hasn't budged.* Instead, it appears that a migrant workforce has taken up the slack.
Now, speaking personally, I'm a big fan of open borders and people being able to move where the work is. If intelligent, educated and diligent Poles with big knockers** (for example) want to move here to work then I'm all for it.
This is not the whole picture either; the image of the unemployed as being either incapable of working or workshy is also simply not true. Of the 5.3 million unemplyed and claiming benefits, the best part of half are classed as lacking but wanting paid employment'; however, it seems they simply being outcompeted by the migratory workforce.

It's here that the BNP have found their niche; despite having invested billions in public services in the same way that I invested four pints up against the garden wall on my way home from the pub the other night, Labour has comprehensively failed their core supporters - indeed, the very people whom the Labour party were created to represent - the working class. Instead, not only there are just as many people on benefits as there were over a decade ago, but many of those genuinely want to work but simply cannot compete in the job markets. More astonishingly, since the 2005 election the incomes of the poorest 10% of the population have actually fallen in real terms. If you combine these factors, the rise of the BNP becomes understandable; a disenfranchised sector of the population who as a whole actually got poorer during the greatest period of economic expansion we have ever known, and who want to work but find themselves out-competed and out-performed by migratory workers makes for a potent brew of disaffection.
I remember railing back in 2005 about the declared public sector liabilities of £38bn; Of course, this was back in the good old days when thirty eight billion quid was a lot of money - since then those liabilities have gone over £720bn and are still growing. This £720bn doesn't take into account unfunded public-sector pension liabilites and PFI commitments*** so you have to admit that Labour's record has been less than stellar; the last time we were this much in debt we at least had punching Hitler squarely on the nose to show for it, but despite that they've not reduced total unemployment by more than can be accounted for by statistical variation and instead made those self same people actually worse off. So much for the 'third way'.

I know there are a number of Labour fans out there on my f-list, so there you are. I've solved your problem for you. The reason the BNP are making gains over you is because you've so alienated and disenfranchised your core electorate over the last ten years that they see voting for the Nazis as preferable. You've shown them what jobs are, but made sure they won't get one and made them poorer instead. If you plan on making a stand at any elections any time soon, you might care to do something about it.


Gosh, that was all very serious, wasn't it? I'll tell some jokes tomorrow, promise. The voices in my head told me some pretty funny ones over the weekend.

^{*Moreover, thesee figures are over a year old. Since they were compiled, unemployment has risen by somewhere in the region of a million, and if projections are anything to go by the total number of 'unemployed and claiming benefits' will top 7 million people by the end of next year.
**Shout out to ditzy_pole here.
*** If those showed up on the figures they'd read £2,000,000,000,000, so it's understandable that ol' prudence brown is keeping schtum.}

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Here's your original post:

"Not every relationship is a company/customer relationship. I don't, personally, think nationalisation is justified (in the current economic and technological climate) beyond services such as health. I'd like to see power, telecoms, water and - arguably - national transport renationalised though. Trying to run these as profit making enterprises has distorted them and taken them away from what they're supposed to do."

Could you expound on what telecoms companies are supposed to do?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/]

Provide a service.
Like transport, power and water these are essential parts of the infrastructure that can't operate most effectively in a wasteful, competitive market.

[(Anonymous)]

I still don't get where you're going with this. A telecoms company provides a service, probably best described as a telecoms service, since that is the market sector they have chosen to operate in.

And I give them some money so they can pay their doodz and invent better phones & stuff.

And after a while someone invents something ruthlessly better than phones, like telepathy or something, and we all say 'these phones are now officially teh suck' and bin them and use whatever the new thing is. Like what happened to tyewriters.

Yes?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/]

And a lot of that invested money is wasted in squabbling over details in what should be an essential, singular service like water, power or gas - all of which privatisation ballsed up.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

What's your definition of an 'essential service'?

[(Anonymous)]

I don't understand. If they're squabbling over details, then it must be because they don't agree on the details, and that must be because there's no obvious solution. How else should they form a concensus other than having a bit of a debate?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Nonsense; in the people's utopia all problems would have single, obvious and manifest solutions, decided by the supreme council and passed to the grateful populace.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/]

Since when is capitalistic 'social darwinism' a debate rather than a monkey knife fight?
Since when does the best product win? (VHS Vs Betamax springs to mind).

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

My understanding was that VHS won on the merit of having longer recording times, thereby giving the customer more of what they wanted for less money. It's a winner every time.

As for my competitors, I reckon I'm in a debate with them with my customers as judges. If the customers think I'm making the best case, they spend with me. If they don't, they take it elsewhere.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/]

VHS was bulkier, less quality picture and numerous other issues. IIRC the play time wasn't so much of an issue, nor the price. It was all down to marketing (lying).

Your customers think they're judging who has the best product, what they're actually judging in many cases is who lies the best, who has the best patter and who can hide their indiscretions best.

Point of order

[raggedyman.livejournal.com]

The generally accepted business view point on VHS/Betamax was that VHS won because more film studios supported it, thus giving it a larger share of the video rental market. As few video stores wished to carry VHS and Betamax they opted for the one with more choice, thus effectively removing Betamax from the major growth area of the market as the consumers were mostly using their systems as players rather than recorders at that time.

[(Anonymous)]

There's an essay somewhere by Iain M Banks where at one point he explains why the Culture is essentially a dirigiste economy. "Where capitalism shines towards a solution (and feudalism merely gutters), a command economy lases..."

Which is kinda a self-defeating metaphor, not least because, as I understand quantum electrodynamics, one way of looking at how light travels is to conclude that it takes every possible path, and we as the observer just see the net result. Presumably Banksy thinks all the photons march in an orderly row towards their destination, like ants, because they knew it was there already.

Apparently during the old Cold War days, a delegation of important Soviet officials were visting Oxford, and passed by the windows of Blackwell's bookshop, where, prominantly on display, was a new analysis of the failure of Communism. The delegates were outraged. Clearly this was a calucalted insult by the authorities. Their guide tried to reason with them, it's a private bookshop, nothing to do with the Government. "Nonsense," said the delegates, "how could the bookseller possibly know what books people were going to buy, unless the government told them?"

I'd give up, John, if I were you

H

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Speaking as someone who runs a company, I'm constrained by law to act in the best interests of my shareholders, namely me.

I do this by offering the best possible service at the best possible price to my customers, thereby out-competing the competition and benefitting the company. I'm pretty sure that any other company which wants shareholders operates in a similar fashion.

It's odd that the law obliges me to act in my own best interests, as I can't think why anyone wouldn't.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/]

The best interests of the shareholders aren't necessarily the best interests of the persons to whom the company provides goods/service.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

From experience, if I don't provide things which my customers want they take their money elsewhere and give it to someone who does until I learn my lesson.

The only time that doesn't happen is when you have monopolies, which is why I disapprove of them.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/]

Ratners.

Not to mention just about any other business that gets 'found out' and those are just the businesses that do get found out.

If you're serving the shareholders you're NOT primarily serving the customers. You're serving profit, not focussing on providing a service. That's fine in many sectors but I happen to think it's not appropriate in the essentials where the focus should genuinely be in the service.

Provided there's accountability in some other form present, of course.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

So, what you're saying is that his customers took their money elsewhere and gave it to someone else? Yup, can't disagree.
Seems to me what his customers wanted was shiney baubles at a low price and were prepared to play along with the pretence that you can buy gold for $30 an ounce, until he told them they were idiots for doing so.

Hmmmn...You're right; I'll add a caveat to my above statement - "Calling your customers idiots is a short-term business plan"

[http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/]

The only examples we can draw are from people who got caught but the prevalence of it is clearly there. Indeed the ongoing financial crisis can be placed at the feet of profit being placed as the primary motive.

[kathminchin.livejournal.com]

Actually in my experience they didn't, They took their money from one part of his chain and gave it to another.

Raner certainly was kicked out as a liability, but his company's still going strong - it's just calle the Signet group nowadays.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

That's just...awesome.

Okay, I'll concede that one; even calling your customers idiots isn't enough to stop them shopping with you.
Blimey.

[kathminchin.livejournal.com]

Interesting that you mention Ratner. He didn’t tell his customers that they were stupid. He made a speech to a bunch of fellow directors and made a joke. It was the media that grabbed it and shoved it in headlines – God Bless a free press.

At the time the Ratner chain consisted of Ratners; H Samuel; Ernest Jones and Leslie Davies. I was working in a branch of H Samuels. We were in giggles about it, saying “My Goodness he’s come clean at last!” We actually sold the same gold earrings and decanter set he was referring to; the only difference was the name on the box. We figured that our customer base knew that we were basically the same as Ratner; that it would be a storm in a teacup and the main thrust by management was “no one is to talk to any member of the press.”

And yet customers started going from Ratners and yet were buying exactly the same stuff in H Samuel. Asked the difference between our £4.99 decanter and the £40.00 decanter – one was moulded glass with a thin silver plated tray; the other was cut crystal glass with a heavier tray. (Make it lead crystal and a silver tray and the cost would rocket.) Explain the difference and most people would claim not to understand why there was a price difference and buy the £4.99 one. When Ratner made his speech we had loads of people who’d bought said decanter from Ratners return it to them and get a refund; then walk down the street to us and buy exactly the same decanter set for exactly the same price. Their reasoning was that it no longer had “Ratner” on the box. And it didn’t matter if they knew that we were part of that chain either! It just made no sense whatsoever. In fact I had a discussion with one customer where, when she asked if we were part of the Ratner chain and I said yes (it was after all on the wall) she accused me of lying! Go figure. I came out of that situation fairly convinced that yes, customers really were stupid; and it didn’t matter if you tried to educate them – they only took notice of what they read in the Daily Mail / Sun / heard in the pub.

I think at about that time I became a cynic when it comes to the Public.

[(Anonymous)]

I was going to agree with you, but game theory suggests both parties will be best served by thrashing out a deal where they both get what they want. Unless the supplier has a monopoly, the customer can walk.

As Orange will find out when my contract expires.

[(Anonymous)]

One of the essays in "Everlasting Light Bulbs" starts with Henry Ford's observation that if a company only existed to make a profit, it would quickly go out of business. Ford himself wanted his workers to do well for themselves - well enough to buy cars, ideally.

H

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I think he once said that the purpose of a business was to "provide the best possible product, at the lowest possible price, whilst paying the highest possible wages".

Sounds fair to me.

[(Anonymous)]

Seems to me like the only way to do that would be to ruthlessly eliminate waste and minimise tax liabilities. Focus entirely on running the business, and nothing else.

So, is the business of a telecoms company telecommunications I wonder? I'm still in the dark.

Personally, I think it should be, as if I go to the phone shop I want a phone, not to underwrite some corporate PR programme. If I want to give to charity, I'll do it myself, not pay some grinning chimp in a suit which cost more than my car to do it for me, whilst pretending he's the generous one.