I've written something on my Substack about why politicians need to make decisions when the public want things that are directly contradictory. You can't have it all and it seems to me that, in practice, people want jobs and money rather than the luxury policies that too many politicians focus on.
It is time for the public to understand what the trade-offs
are. They need to be told that yes, you can have all the stuff you say
you want - nutrient neutrality, silent city centres, triple lock
pensions, net zero, protectionism, bans on everything you don’t like,
20mph speed limits, high speed rail, state-run healthcare, more
borrowing, more regulation, more tzars, more badgers, more wolves or
whatever - but you are going to be poor.
Nobody wants to hear that and nobody is going
to hear that, because politicians won’t level with the electorate. And
so politicians will have to make the decision for them. They will have
to be - I know this sounds crazy but hear me out - leaders.
It
should be taken as read that local residents will oppose any
development that they don’t directly profit from, that single issue
pressure groups will oppose everything, and that opinion polls will
always show support for luxury, high status policies unless the
consequences are spelt out. But it seems fairly clear from opinion polls
on voting intention in the last two years that lower prices, higher
incomes and economic growth are the real priorities of the British
public and that these should therefore be the priorities of the British
government even though public opinion will be against the engines of
economic growth in the short-term.
Have a read and do subscribe if you haven't already. It is free.