danieldwilliam | On My Framework For Thinking About Political Policy

I am both a spectator and a participant in politics. I'm a political activist (less so now than in past years) but watching politics is also a hobby.

When ever a political controversy* emerges I tend to look at in the following dimensions as a first pass to get a feel for the likely direction of the campaign.

Thinking about the voters

Heat - how much do voters agree or disagree with you

Salience - how important do the voters think this issue is

Valence - how likely is this issue to change the voters voting behaviour

Calefaction - how likely is this issue to change voters engagement or activism

This is the psephology area.

If voters agree with you and will change their vote because of that agreement you are on to a political winner. If they agree with you but don't think the issue is important and everyone has similar policies then that's nice, but not important.

Thinking about the policy

Aim - are the aims of the policy useful

Fitness - does the policy actually achieve the policy aims

Side Effects - what other impacts does the policy have

Winners - who benefits from the policy, who suffers from the policy

This is the wonk area - what does the policy do, for whom, does it work and what else happens if you implement the policy.

Thinking about the party and the polity

Truthiness - does the policy sound like it will achieve the policy aims

Constituency - does the policy have a large "natural constituency**" of people who are directly affected

Like Us - does the policy sound like us, can it make us sound like we don't want to sound

Factional Blocker - is there a faction with power who feel strongly about this policy being put forward

This is around the presentation and messaging of policy and values.

There are lots of policies that are technically good policies and in policy areas people think are important that don't get carried out because they don't sound right.

Decriminalising drugs and focusing prison policy on rehabilitation and re-training would work, but it makes you sound soft on criminals. Dredging rivers sounds like it ought to solve problems of flooding but it actually only moves water downstream quicker causing a worse flood down river.

Thatcher's presentation of the public finances as best run like a prudent housewife would run her home keeps tripping the Labour Party in to the Geddes Axe because no matter how sound your Keynesian macro-economics is voters think frugality in public spending is the sign of a political party managing the economy well.

If you think about the front page of the Sun newspaper and all the upstream and downstream processes from that - that's this bit.

So that's the framework I'm using when I look at a policy or legislative initiative.

*Not a scandal, a disagreement about policy or values

** this is very specifically not people who are interested in the issue or think it is important but people directly impacted or those people in close relationships with them. I think business rates for local shops is probably an important policy area if you want vibrant cities that serve their citizens well - I am not the owner of a corner shop. The classic example of how this plays is the contrast in the USA between the rapid shift on policy for gay and lesbian people compared to the slower shift on policy for African American civil rights. It turns out that when gay and lesbian people are able to be open about themselves every family or friendship group includes one or two homosexuals. Everyone is directly affected. This is not true for African Americans.