EE#36 Hell Yeh I Trust Enuff
Policy in an era of distrust
Around the world, voters have had enough with their governments. 2024 saw nearly every incumbent get a kicking, with electorates losing faith in policy, politicians and their political systems. Biden’s loss especially highlighted a mismatch between economic reality and lived experience. Voters didn’t trust what they were being told. UK voters’ optimism bounce in July quickly came crashing down. Some have proclaimed that this anti-political feeling means the death of deliverism, that governments aim for reelection on the back of actually getting things done. It doesn’t. Progressives are going to have to work out how to exist and succeed in a world of low trust rather than try and retreat into the warm embrace of identity politics. But how?
Low trust makes it seem like there is no political benefit to change. Voters are sceptical that promised change is coming, they are sceptical when it comes that it is in fact better, and they are sceptical that, even if they recognise improvements, it was because of government.
You quickly end up in a self-fulfilling cycle. If there’s no upside, politicians self-constrain or become distracted from delivery by negative sentiment, reinforced by the media or commentators. A single, settled ‘public will’ is harder to identify, creating a perception that there’s no political latitude to act. (1) That leads to stasis, life gets worse and government gets the blame.
That matters for everything government does, but for something like climate where the longer we take the more costly and more difficult decisions become it can be catastrophic. Seeing how this has played out in two recent groups we ran, on different issues, crystallises the challenge.
As part of Public First’s anti-politics work, we looked at policies for political reform. One often raised is an independent oversight body for MPs (like the FA or Ofsted). This polls well, and the immediate reaction you get in focus groups is positive. But very quickly voters turn, and talk themselves out of it. ‘Who would appoint the board’, ‘politicians would make the rules themselves’. They are so cynical of Westminster any attempts to reform perpetuate a belief politicians are rigging the system.
Similarly, we recently tested a bunch of community benefits proposals for energy infrastructure. Every single positive outcome was met with disbelief that benefits would ever materialise, or if they did local politicians would pocket it for themselves. Given community benefits are one of the government’s key planks for increasing support this doesn’t bode well.
To tackle low-trust we need to be clearer what we mean. I’d urge you to read my colleague Michela’s blog which breaks down the generic and unhelpful term anti-politics into three distinct traits, and their levels, found in the British public:
Cynicism - mostly older and Reform voting. They show a strong dislike for politicians, but will still vote regularly.
Disassociated - a belief the system has failed but still wants to make change, and might resort to other actions for example protest. Often found in younger, more educated voters
Powerless - who Westminster thinks of as anti-political, this characteristic is demonstrated by disengagement and apathy.
We need to work out why trust is low. It’s very easy to point to a series of scandals, Paterson, Pincher, Partygate, Tractor Porn - all of which built on a foundation of expenses fiddling and cash for access - and say that must be it. But that isn’t the whole story - not least because there has always been scandal, but we haven’t had this endemic level of mistrust before. (2)
Voters have changed. Much like our wider consumption, there is an expectation of immediacy and personal benefit that wasn’t there before.There is less deference and power is more distributed away from the corridors of Westminster. An excellent piece by Will Jennings at Southampton goes into lots of this.
Unlike before voters can articulate their voice quicker and easier. Broken promises comes up again and again in focus groups, and while there are definitely some unmet promises from recent governments some of it is unrealistic expectations from the electorate.
Governing has changed. More is expected of governments, and success across many metrics is harder to achieve than a few. Politicians speak more in soundbites and are less deliberative to appease perceived shorter attention spans.
Low trust is changing behaviour. The received wisdom is that distrust has pushed voters into apathy and disengagement. The opposite is true. 69% of the public are interested in politics with 67% saying they had discussed politics with others at least a few times a month. People are more likely to do political acts, just not necessarily vote for mainstream parties. Brexit and Covid were huge political events that forced people to pay attention to politics. The challenge is that they paid attention and didn’t like what they saw.
There’s also a bucket of things unique to energy and climate that are important to how we develop policy.
Dieselgate and local government cuts to recycling have left voters cynical that things they are told are better for the environment actually are. They question whether EVs for example actually are greener, or whether they’ll be told something different later
Promises of ‘green jobs’ have not materialised and were never specific enough to be believable in the first place. Try talking to people in Blyth about jobs in battery manufacturing.
Perceptions of hypocrisy undermine behavioural change. Are politicians still flying/driving petrol cars/using gas boilers? If they aren’t changing why should we?
The big question is what actually rebuilds trust - is it specific trust-building policy, or a general sense that lives are improving? Voters find political reform is niche and boring and at worst navel-gazing. But it needs to be done because it makes other reforms easier. What happens in Westminster needs to be understood, and look professional, adult and respectable to voters.
I was personally devastated that voters like the pomp, ceremony and tradition and didn’t want to burn it down and move to a WeWork in Manchester. The reforms they are interested in are ones that bring clarity and are more incremental than revolutionary. Publish an MP’s job description, hire staff (3) centrally, in a standardised way, and speak more directly to the public in a longer form, where they can ask questions back.
No 10 understands the trust challenge. Despite pressure from commentators, they are determined to keep promises achievable, the recent non-reset reset was all about this - ensuring change is tangible to voters. They have also learned from Biden. One thing Biden didn’t do was prime voters for the change they would see under his leadership, when change happened attribution got much harder.
Priming people for the change under Labour is behind the promise over energy bills. Yes, there is a risk of failure, but critics never consider the alternative. Is it a more modest number? Is it no promise at all? What upside do they expect voters to see from clean energy if not from bills? Promising a counter-factual of energy security, “your bills would’ve been even higher” didn’t exactly work for Liz Truss.
Labour should also look at its relationship with business. They are holding CEOs tight, promising to be the party of business. This is in no one's interest. It is not 1997, Labour doesn’t need business to make it seem economically credible, not least because the public's view of economic credibility is wildly different now. The risk is that Labour is seen as acting in big businesses’ interest and not voters. Helping them make profits at households’ expense.
In work I did on GB Energy, it's more effective for both business and government if government is seen as moving industry closer to the public interest. Support for business grows, public opposition to say infrastructure falls and things actually get built.
Labour cannot get distracted from delivery in this era of low trust. The question after Biden is not, what do progressives do if deliverism is dead, but how do you still deliver when trust is low? It can still work.
(1) The recent decision not to reform the broken political donations system for example
(2) One impact not discussed is that recent scandals have shown that reforms to whistleblowing are working. New reporting avenues are surfacing the people that would’ve got away with it before.
(3) though not more staff, they think MPs should just be getting on with their job not hire others to do it