Thread by @syrpis

A quick thread about politics.

It strikes me that there has been a disjuncture - which has abruptly ended - between why people vote as they do; and the appeals which political parties make to people. 1/8

We know that most people vote on the basis that the promises of the party they vote for best match *their* interests and preferences. They vote, in other words, for their selfish interests. 2/

Of course, different people define their interests in different ways. They are also more or less rooted in their community, society etc.

The party which succeeds in best appealing to more people's interests tends to win elections. 3/

However, most parties have sought to present their vision/narrative as one which best meets the interest of the nation, or society, or the people. They have appealed to the *societal* or *national*, rather than the *selfish*, interest. 4/

BUT, this Govt, surface rhetoric notwithstanding, rejects a *societal* approach, and seeks instead to divide people based on their different selfish interests. The promotion of selfish interests is, it seems, all the better if the interests of 'others' are quashed. 5/

It is not at all surprising that this is a successful approach. Appeals to societal interests are in many ways weaker (and less visceral) than appeals to selfish interests (@xzlod), and also less likely to work in a climate in which confidence in politics is low. 6/

It is difficult to work out how the opposition should best respond; it seems (and these are not dissimilar) that it has either to develop a convincing societal narrative and convince people it can deliver change... 7/

...or seek to transform many people's perception of their selfish interests. Both of those represent huge challenges. 8/8