Its not enough to be rational

It needs saying again and again until it is heard: people – consumers and voters – make decisions on irrational grounds. For all their inadequacies, simple answers to complex questions are seductive, especially to those who are not well informed.

You may think that, being rational, like I like to think I am, you decide what to do or buy having weighed up the evidence: value for money; public good; quality; experience. But the reality is that human behaviour is not immune to emotional influences. We make instant judgements on people we meet. We prefer one brand over others. We like one public figure we do not know more than another. We fail to weigh up the evidence in favour of rapid response to stimuli.

This is not to say that we should not act in a considered, rational way – just that we cannot always help ourselves and do not always have the information on which to base a judgement. Buyers of one brand of car over another are rarely competent to judge rationally the relative technical qualities of each, so make their choices on image or perception. A manufacturer must carry out research and develop sound technical design, before devoting similar sums to clever marketing messages to convince customers to prefer their resulting product.

Do people buy into a religion on the basis of scientific grounding or because it appeals to their emotional needs? So with politics. Rational self-interest is pleaded by Conservatives as grounds for their manifestos; but this is in reality an emotional, self-centred appeal. Labour’s appeal to the more altruistic or at least communal sense of the voting public faces tough tests when up against this self-interest. A political leader must think through costs and impacts of policies. But then – how to sell this dry basket of plans? S/he must develop an emotional pull as well, which appeals to the current experience of the voters. This may take the form of a barb against their opponents or a Big Idea. Certainly, a strong emotional antipathy to one party or another – or their leaders – whipped up by partisan media drives headlines and [too?] many votes. Whichever tactic is chosen must be crafted into instantly comprehensible messages - slogans. Slogans? As the basis for the serious business of voting? You betcha! Whether positive or negative, they stick in the minds of millions far better than budgets and dry policies, even if sometimes they become a stick with which to beat their utterers:

“Remoaners!”                    “Strong and stable”         “Take back control”         “Labour’s deficit”

Let us demand that skill and responsibility is applied to the drafting of policies, manifestos, trade deals and laws but let us also recognise that such detail is a turn-off to many, who will respond more keenly to simplistic messages; and make sure that Labour is sharper, in tune with the electorate and effective in its slogans. We should not need to do this – but we do. Tories have a habit of doing this better.

Activists - what drives them?

What on earth makes thousands work in their own time and often at their own cost in the name of politics?

It is perhaps quite understandable that people should stand for election at whatever level of the democratic pyramid. They may seek the Viagra of power. They may seek to change society for the better. They may simply be ambitious. But at the end, there is a reward, in the form of remuneration, celebrity, influence, satisfaction at outcome, even a better society.

But what of the volunteer foot-soldiers who work tirelessly to put them in this happy state? What do they get? Why do they/we do it,  for there is no glamour and not a little stress involved in cold-calling on the phone, in unwelcome door-knocking, in carrying through the 19th century form-filling or in raising funds which may serve little purpose, for candidates with no hope of victory? They travel at their own expense. They spend their own leisure time devoted to boring, repetitive tasks often in the face of insults. They are largely anonymous both within their party and the outside world, so expect no reward or recognition.

For some, it may simply be a hobby, a past-time linked to their political allegiance but this is surely insufficiently powerful a pull to explain the sheer number of volunteers and hours devoted to the campaign trail. This can surely best be explained by the values they see in the politics. Being myself of the Left, I certainly promote Labour because I want to live in a fairer, less selfish society. How Tories explain their values I leave to them - this is beyond comprehension [unless malice is a value]. But a vision of a better society must surely be the driver for the great unpaid armies currently at work. Let us hope we get one.