Coastline CEO Allister Young warns against falling for ‘cakeism’ in the electioneering that we’re currently living through. He says it’s important to remember that tough choices always need to be made.
The news is awash with General Election updates, so I’m pretty sure that what you’ve all been waiting for is more information about the election! So here goes, back into the potentially dangerous and murky waters of politics and policy again… But also with some cake, which most people at Coastline seem to be very fond of!
Linking cake and housing isn’t a new thing here at Coastline – I recall in March last year highlighting that one of the contestants at in Junior Bake Off was inspired by the housing crisis to bake a housing themed cake in the competition.
But the cake link this week isn’t just about housing, it’s about politicians and policy proposals more widely.
Simply put: be wary of anyone that says you can have your cake and eat it too. Or as it’s called when people try to pretend that tough choices aren’t necessary – ‘cakeism’.
I suspect ‘cakeism’ has been around for a long time, and is probably as old as humanity itself. But I also suspect it’s become more common as communication methods have improved. It’s become easier to connect with more and more people quickly and easily, but this often seems to lead to messages getting simplified to appeal to broader and broader groups.
I think one of the first times I really became aware of ‘cakeism’ was when I worked at a charity that relied on fundraising from the public, and I saw how charities competed with each other to make claims about how little money they spent on ‘administration’. It seems reasonable: you as the donor want the £££s you donate to go to the end recipient as efficiently as possible. But you also want the charity to be well run and to have good governance so that your donation is looked after and spent wisely. And rather than confront this and be honest with donors, charities instead embraced ‘cakeism’ – expecting donors to believe that every penny of their donation goes to the end recipient, while also expecting the charity to be well run.
And it seems to have become more common in politics. All the parties will tell you what they’re going to achieve, but they’re not likely to tell you how it’s going to be paid for (they’ll always claim they can pay for it by finding ‘efficiencies’, or saving £billions by clamping down on tax evasion and tax avoidance, but neither of these are realistic).
Simply put? You can't have tax cuts without reducing government spending, or investing in better growth. You can't reduce debt without higher taxes or better growth. You can't cut immigration without thinking about who will work in health and care, or about how you fund higher education. You can't build the number of homes the country needs, or achieve a transition to carbon zero without some people feeling like they are losers. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
If you want to read more about this topic, the Institute for Fiscal Studies published a report about it earlier this year. But I suspect you’ve heard enough promises from political parties over the years to know that ‘cakeism’ exists, so you probably don’t need to. What I would suggest you do, is any time you interact with a politician, or anyone who seems like they believe in ‘cakeism’, is that you ask them to be honest with you. Despite what Col Jessup/Jack Nicholson thinks, we can handle the truth.
