A very interesting article by Gary Younge in The Guardian today - some of which I agree, some of which I don't. Younge talks about the political arguments made in the last decade or so by the American right and left about the economy and the narratives with which they were substantiated. He also talks a little about Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant.

As such the article serves as a useful reminder of the need for greater understanding of the conceptual space co-habited by economic theory, popular knowledge, received wisdom and ideology.

Full article here, extract below:

As we in Britain edge towards an autumn of swingeing public sector cuts, it is crucial that the left reframes popular understanding of the origins of, and options emerging from, this economic crisis. So far the right has made all the running. According to Ipsos Mori, in March the number of those who opposed the Tory strategy was double that of those who backed it. By the end of last month the tables had turned, with 44% backing swift deficit reduction and 35% against it.

In no small part, the right has been able to achieve this by framing the impending pain as an unavoidable consequence of Labour's reckless spending. The only way to emerge from this period intact, they claim, is to inflict savage spending cuts on a bloated public sector and let the private sector create the jobs. Those who refuse to accept this inevitability offer only a kneejerk response to inescapable economic reality.

This is nonsense on many levels, not least factually. The main reason it has worked has been the absence of a coherent counter-narrative from the left about how we got into this situation and therefore how we might get out of it. The good news is the left has a far more believable story to tell that has the added benefit of being true. The trouble is, with the scions of New Labour battling it out for the leadership, there are too few to tell it. Each new coalition proposal prompts isolated rebuttals from the contenders – but rarely set in a broader context. Rather than sounding prime-ministerial, they appear petulant.