Immigration and benefits. These are the hot topics of current political debate. Fed by a frenzy of media activity on both sides of the spectrum, along with the economy, both are ubiquitous. But should these issues be so pervasive? The economy should for obvious reasons, it impacts on all aspects of our lives and has a larger influence than any other topic. The economy is also inextricably linked to other topics, as its state determines the amount of money that is sent to each department from the Treasury. The other two have a more dubious right to be so prominent.
A major reason for the diversion towards these great issues of our time, is that most people are simply ignorant of the facts and instead responding to the issues emotively. Influential psychologist Daniel Kahneman has written extensively on this matter, looking at how individuals respond to events. Kahneman has found that most people, including academics, have extremely poor statistical intuition. That is to say, in matters that can be analysed empirically most people will respond to them using preconcieved stereotypes that fit their own subset of pre-determined views. His work can help us to understand the current political landscape.
A survey conducted last year showed that the British public is poorly informed on every major issue. Those surveyed thought that 24% of the benefits budget is fraudulently claimed, the actual amount is a mere 0.7%. An amount that is fairly insignificant in the total public spending, and yet this is a major topic in the political debate. Even the Labour party has toughened up its approach on welfare policy in the mounting tide of public opposition to the 'scroungers'. I am not claiming that all of the welfare budget is well spent, but benefit fraud is a misnomer in the debate that derails serious discussion of societal failings. Is it not time that we addressed the burgeoning pensions pot which makes up over half of the welfare budget. State pensions are rising at 2.7% and yet wages have been rising at a mere 1.1% and yet this is not even up for discussion. The likely explanation is that people of pension age turn out to vote in droves.
Another topic addressed in the survey was immigration. Those asked considered 31% of the population to be recent immigrants when the actual figure is just 13%, opinions surely driven by the relentless focus of media and prominent politicians on the influx and damaging impact it has. Again the signal and the noise are far apart. An independent report commissioned late last year found that the economic impact of immigration is clearly in the positive, immigrants are more likely to contribute in taxes and less likely to take welfare payments. Many trees have been wasted on the incoming surge of immigrants from those dastardly places called Romania and Bulgaria. Droves were coming, and coming to take a job near you. Oh and your child's school place, and definitely do not get ill as all the doctors are booked up with immigrants. The gates opened on the 1st January and a total of 24 people are estimated to have entered so far. Don't worry though, they are coming - honest.
It is often forgotten that most native Brits are probably immigrants in one form or another, what right do we have to arbitrarily decide we are full? It is also forgotten that Britain remains a prosperous due to its development as a post industrial economy, which was built on the industrial revolution and the fruits of the British Empire, which set about raping and pillaging the world of resources and wealth that have ultimately left us in the privileged position we are in today.
The point I am trying to drive home is not that we are all idiots and we should return to an absolute Monarchy under the great Prince Charles, but that if the public has no real interest in the evidence behind important issues why should they be consulted. Thom Yorke doesn't poll all Radiohead fans asking them whether a certain song should have an Em7 or just a Em, that would be ridiculous. Although a trivial example, it is evidence of how consultancy can lead to a worse end product. If leading economists cannot agree of the correct course of action then why ask clueless punters to pick between parties.
Membership of the EU is a further example. For some reason the public are convinced that we deserve a referendum on our membership in the EU. The Tories are running scared from UKIP and are seemingly going to at last give in, after the next election of course. The main opposition to the EU is on a fiscal basis, promoted by UKIP and numerous Tories who portray us as being sucked dry by those damn grey men is Brussels. Academics and economists have a different view, with the vast majority acknowledging that Britain receives more money back than it puts it - regardless of any extra trade benefits, which are no doubt large. Why the public should be consulted on such an important issue that could have huge potential costs is beyond me. The arguments in favour of leaving are more emotive and passionately declared at the moment and public opinion is in the balance. We can hope that the case is made for staying a member in a clear and direct way.
Above all of these issues, public opinion likely actually harms the public good in a utilitarian sense - or what is best for most people. Whilst not as extreme as countries like America, our nation's policies largely ensure that wealth is distributed unevenly throughout society. Capitalism in Britain does not serve the majority, privatisation and favourable corporate and individual tax rates ensure that wealth is maintained by corporations and wealthy individuals. The richest 1% have the same amount of wealth as the bottom 60%. We like to think that they have earned this privileged position, but in reality these people are the beneficiaries of circumstance and favourable conditions not remarkable individual brilliance. Yet the public does not rally against this by seeking higher taxation and a fairer distribution of wealth. Clearly this would not immediately solve societal problems but in the long term it likely would. Introducing a minimum basic income should alleviate many of these problems in a few generations, and tests in Canada showed there was a less than 1% drop in productivity in such a system. Public opinion is a long way from embracing such a policy, which is a shame as it would benefit the majority of people.
No comments:
Post a Comment