The furore over winter fuel payments is driven by the false idea that pensioners are uniformly old, frail and poor. But in politics, feelings often matter as much as facts, says John Oxley
This week’s tussle over the winter fuel allowance has highlighted one of the problems of our politics – how much of it is driven by perceptions that are wrong or incomplete. For many, the concept of “pensioners” conjures up images of the very old, very frail and very poor. News agencies append articles with stock images of wizened hands clutching pennies. As a stereotype, it draws sympathy but is largely misleading.
To begin with, pensioners are perhaps younger and fitter than most think. The youngest drawing the benefit now were born in the late 1950s – not just too young for Vera Lynn and World War Two nostalgia, but too young for the Beatles, England winning the World Cup, or to remember where they were when JFK was shot. They are also financially diverse. While some are undoubtedly struggling, a quarter are living in millionaire households, and two-thirds own their home outright.
Where you sit on the debate around heating payments is probably informed by which image of pensioners you have in your head. If the word conjures up the very elderly and struggling, an extra £300 a month may seem like the least the government can do. If instead you think of the comfortably off and active, moving from Pilates class to cruise holiday, the payment is likely to feel like unnecessary largesse. Perception is a major driver of politics, even when it is inaccurate or incomplete.
#Very few people have an accurate grasp of the realities of our political landscape. People wildly underestimate how much we spend on the NHS, for example, and think we pay far more than we do towards MPs’ wages and expenses. Regarding housing, people see thousands of homes being built but don’t clock the millions more we need. Higher earners don’t usually realise how much better off they are than the median, while voters are often wrong about simple data like economic performance, crime rates, or immigration numbers. This means that opinions are moved more often by gut feel more than by detailed analysis.
An electorate of experts?
This is entirely understandable. Humans are instinctively poor at understanding large numbers and huge categories. On a more practical level, only the most obsessive politicos have the time or the inclination to dial into detailed policy considerations. The average person probably pays attention to the news for a few minutes a week at most. An entire electorate of experts is unachievable. Instead, those who wish to move public opinion or make popular policies have to engage with how voters see the world rather than how it is.
This means either reflecting these perceptions or working to shift them. Policymakers should be conscious of the assumptions they are working with or against. A workable, effective policy will founder if the public doesn’t perceive the need for it because it jars with the way they see the world. When making tough decisions like on pensioner benefits, it is not enough to push the logic of the case, you have to reflect on its emotional impact, too.
Public perceptions are often simplistic, wrong, and slow to change. Our images of old people are perhaps the most obvious and currently most pertinent. The problem arises for issue after issue, whether it is high earners thinking only the even richer should pay more tax or where cuts and spending should move. Persuading the public needs to begin with an acknowledgement of these misconceptions.
Politics is about selling ideas. A starting point is understanding the perceptions you are dealing with. This week shows how one mischaracterisation can dominate a debate and determine the political consequences of a policy. Whatever you are advocating, navigating this is a must. Otherwise, even the smartest campaign can fail when the feelings don’t match up to the facts.