Like many families do to work off Christmas dinner, we settled down this year for a ‘friendly’ game of Monopoly.
The age, experience, and tactics were varied; from the blind luck of buying every single property you land on in round one to those who pursue the mathematically maximal strategy of buying Leicester Square, Coventry Street, and Piccadilly (the yellows), or even the Utility magnates which were snapped up because she “just felt like it…”
This game, which never seems to have a definite end, was most successfully played by those of us who understood “trade-offs.”
Knowing that if you bought Mayfair, you’d scarcely have any money left, less for a Chance card, or when to trade houses for hotels. We apply these principles, not just in tantrum-inducing board games, but in life. Yet we have seemingly forgotten about this in politics and the public thinks that we are treating them like mugs as a result.
The time to talk about trade-offs is, of course, in opposition.
The long Parliament offers a chance to go through the stages of policy preparation. The first is Orientation – or values setting. As Conservatives, this is largely about aspiration, individual responsibility, family, and national pride. Then comes Observation – where do those values sit within our society? This is the stage where we need to gather data and launch and monitor campaigns and trial schemes. The third stage is deciding what to do. This is where we need to be honest about trade-offs.
You might expect me to start reeling off examples, beginning with tax and spending, but where did we begin earlier? We began with values, how we apply those values in our society, and whether listening and doing what people want (gathering data) or whether we take on an argument and leading (as a result of a successful campaign) is the best approach. Our values are the immovable object around which we are orientated and therefore we must trade off against that.
As a worked example, I would argue that aspiration is a core Conservative value and education is a prime instrument for exercising our efforts towards that value. Indeed, having that at the core of the last 14 years of Conservative rule, led to huge and objective successes in terms of pupil attainment. Children, who will soon become adults, will be better placed to navigate this increasingly complex world as a result.
But what is the trade-off here one might reasonably ask.
In the case of education, it was likely prioritizing more STEM subjects than humanities (we rocketed up the maths league tables). I will declare an interest, I am a mathematics graduate, but I believe humanities are a huge part of what makes our education system rich – and I certainly read more humanities books than STEM ones in my adulthood. Nonetheless, a conscious decision was made to prioritise knowledge it felt would be beneficial for the economy of the future – a bet that is proving to be correct.
It is hugely promising to learn that Kemi Badenoch is establishing policy commissions to work through positions and implementation of key goals – articulated in her “Renewal 2030” campaign messaging. During this process, it is worth noting that Labour have found themselves in the precarious position of tanking opinion poll numbers as a result of their lack of articulation of trade-offs through opposition.
Whilst it is often said that the Opposition does not start getting listened to until about 12 months out from an election, Labour’s unpopularity has likely lengthened that period. And Reform’s populism sans policy means there is a space for genuine, grown-up articulation of Conservative beliefs and delivery.
If a short-term decision is determined to be ‘unpopular’ but will bring meaningful benefits in the longer term we should not shy away from the argument. The most successful oppositions, and by that, I mean those who make it into government and, crucially, remain in government are those who make the argument over many years.
They use opposition to not only articulate a vision and lay out specific policies but also establish ways of delivering those priorities. It is the singular reason David Cameron and George Osborne were able to enact a tough deficit reduction program, with a solid mandate, and were rewarded with a victory five years later (in 2015).
There is a reason why Parliaments are four to five years in length and election campaigns are six weeks. Because it takes a long time to actually deliver and a short time to promise. To wait until an election campaign to ‘orientate, observe and decide’, where the public attention quickly attenuates to the sharp tip of a pencil in a voting booth, is too late.
As I was watching my pile of Monopoly money dwindle at a faster rate than the glass of red wine on the side table, whilst my younger family raked it in, I felt as if I had just listened to a few of those Martin Lewis videos about how to ‘win’ at the game, I would be in a happier place.
Fortunately, the stakes weren’t that high on Christmas Day, but they are now in politics. Labour are finding themselves playing with a conspicuously low number of chance cards remaining as a result. We Conservatives, however, have a golden opportunity to advance to Go, and run the board.
Link to original, published in Conservative Home on 10 January 2025.
