Yesterday, the highest inflation figures for 40 years were announced. This got me thinking about the communication of the cost of living crisis in historical context.
(Apologies, long thread alter. TLDR: Thatcher was good at these comms, Johnson very poor).
My main observation is that the government is being pretty rubbish at this. Take Johnson at PMQs yesterday (as detailed by @johnjcrace in the @Guardian).
theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/18/boris-johnson-pmqs-cost-of-living-crisis
When questioned on cost of living, he resorted to culture war tropes (Starmer doesn't know what a woman is) and talking about cross rail, claiming he was Mayor when the project started (he wasn't).
The wider government is not any better. As skewered by @Marinahyde they have resorted to offering money saving tips, including the brilliant suggestions of getting a higher paid job, working more hours and buying value products from supermarkets.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/17/martin-lewis-queue-tory-mps-solve-cost-of-living-crisis
This got me thinking about how similar issues were communicated 40 years ago. I found two items on the Thames Television archive on @youtube.
The first was an interview with Margaret Thatcher on a programme called Afternoon Plus in January 1981. The format is interesting. I guess the programme was in what today we'd think of as the @loosewomen slot.
Vox pop questions from the public, coupled with an in-studio audience of successful women in various fields, who also get to ask their questions (including the Oxford political scientist Gillian Peele).
h
Second I found this interview from Feb '82, which is on a programme called TV Eye. This is a more straightforward traditional political interview.
h
This period was tumultuous. In 1980, inflation was 22%, falling back to just below 10% by the end of 1981. However, by Jan 1982, unemployment had reached 3 million. This period also saw rioting in Toxteth and Brixton, and the founding of the SDP.
(As an aside @TheRestHistory did a splendid podcast on 1981 and why this year was so pivotal in creating Thatcher and modern Britain).
twitter.com/TheRestHistory/status/1328282438523555841?s=20&t=gR5rBCJcnJJravuR1cCc7g
In someways, the Thatcher interviews are really recognisable, echoing the present: one women in the 1981 programme is worried about the cost of fuel, another about the increasing costs of running a business. A nurse asks whether Mrs Thatcher could survive on her wages.
So what can we take away from watching how Thatcher coped with these interviews? I would identify three things:
1. Emphasising tough choices (particular focus on tax payers).
2. Weirdly cosmopolitan in its analysis.
3. Focus in end destination.
Taking these in turn.
The 1981 programme is interesting, because it allows various stakeholders to question the PM (a nurse, a teacher, a doctor, a trade unionist etc). Thatcher's answers are interesting because she recognises the case that all of them are making.
But then she goes onto point out that spending money in any particular area would involve taking more taxpayer money. She always uses this formulation (never government money) in both interviews, even though they are a year apart.
Obviously, you can critique the analysis, but the message discipline and its connection to ideological project is very impressive.
Another thing that is striking about the interviews is how often she references other countries in her arguments. She does it in a way that focuses on competing with those nations, but there is a strong sense of looking abroad for models that the UK could learn from.
There is a particular emphasis on Germany, and to a lesser extent France and Japan, as providing examples of an efficient economy. The strong sense is given that the UK is a laggard, trailing these competitor nations.
Finally, you have a strong sense of destination. Blame goes 3 ways - global circumstances, trade unions/ nationalised industries and Labour (although an interesting moment occurs in the 1982 interview, where Thatcher also critiques the 1970-74 Tory, in which she served).
The end goal is stated to be a UK economy that is better able to compete internationally when global demand picks up. In theory, that resolves the policy problems (inflation, unemployment etc) that the government faces.
It's up to historians to ask if the government achieved what Thatcher claimed it would and what that meant for society. But if you assume Thatcher was good as communicating in these circumstances (and she won two subsequent elections) what does this tell us about Johnson?
Current UK government comms lacks any of the three ingredients above. Johnsonian Cakism cannot cope with making choices, much less explaining the rationale for decisions to the electorate.
The second Thatcher rhetorical strategy demonstrates a significant problem this government faces. Brexit put the UK so far outside mainstream political economy, it is now hard to provide an answer to which country the UK would like to emulate or could learn from.
Saying Germany, for example, will only lead to ridicule. Saying the US will trigger a political backlash and concerns about rapid deregulation (the chlorinated chicken problem).
And finally, it should be abundantly obvious by now, this government doesn't really have an end destination in mind. Of course, one could say that Thatcher was an ideologue and this might actually be an unattractive trait in a politician.
But at the moment there is no sense of what the current government is striving for, no sense of a plan beyond survival. Hence we have ministers offering micro-level solutions and suggesting we cancel our @netflix accounts.
This problem comes from the top. Johnson is simply not a politician cut out for this sort of crisis. If I were a Tory MP, and I watched a few of those Thatcher interviews and compared them with, for example, PMQs yesterday, I would be very, very worried for my job.
Nick Anstead
@NickAnstead
Assoc Prof working on political communication & political ideas @MediaLSE. Also 🧵 nickanstead.
