The real divide in British politics: fantasists vs realists
The serious policy conversations this country needs to have on issues such as health, tax and growth are currently being held hostage by the fantasy-based class who never let a fact get in the way of a feeling, says Harry Richer
A new divide is dominating British politics. Forget left versus right or the haves versus the have-nots. The divide that explains British politics right now is between those who use evidence to inform their views and those who do not. We have a class in Britain living in reality, and we have a class in Britain that simply does not. The divide now defining British politics is the reality-based class versus the fantasy-based class.
This divide runs through both economic and social debates, and it explains why so many arguments in this country go absolutely nowhere. One side argues from evidence-informed opinions and the reality of the world as it is; the other side argues from an entirely fantastical world where facts do not matter; feelings and experiences dictate views and are used as evidence. The serious policy conversations this country needs to have on issues such as health, tax and growth are currently being held hostage by the fantasy-based class who never let a fact get in the way of a feeling.
The reality-based class sees that public spending has never been higher in real terms, and yet the NHS – which increasingly resembles a health service with a country attached rather than the other way round – is seemingly in terminal decline. For the reality-based class, this prompts an honest conversation about structure: why do the Dutch, German and Australian systems, all of which mix social insurance with more plurality of provision, consistently outperform ours on outcomes?
To the fantasy-based class, even raising that comparison is treated as heresy; the entire debate collapses back into “where’s the £350m a week,” even though Theresa May in the years after Brexit increased NHS funding by more than £350m a week. This does not matter to the fantasy-based class; to them the NHS is both “the envy of the world” and is only struggling because the Tories cut its funding during their 14 years in Government beginning with the austerity years. Neither of these is true, of course. The NHS ranks poorly in most global rankings, and the Tories both ring-fenced the NHS during the austerity years and only increased its real-terms funding since. The fantasy-based class never let evidence overrule their feelings – I feel that the Tories cut funding to the NHS, and therefore they did.
On economics, the reality-based view sees the UK’s tax burden as at a post-war high at over 38 per cent of GDP. This is a fact used as evidence to inform views. Those within the reality-based class will disagree on the response to this, but they all accept it as reality.
Yet to the fantasy-based class, this fact is ignored. To them, taxes are too low, and Britain is a rich person’s paradise. A wealth tax should be implemented – the evidence from other countries that have implemented one does not matter; I feel that a wealth tax is fair and would raise significant funds, and therefore it will. I feel the Conservatives spent 14 years cutting taxes for the rich, their mates, and therefore that is what happened. At his first conference speech as the Green Party leader, Polanski argued for taxing the wealthiest one per cent to end “rip-off Britain” – this is “rip-off Britain”, where the top 10 per cent already pay over 60 per cent of income tax, as the TPA has shown. For the fantasy-based class, businesses with all of their capitalist exploitation can easily afford tax rises, minimum wage rises, and new regulations – don’t listen to their capitalist groans as they tell you otherwise. Oh, to live in a fantasy land.
Arguing from different worlds
These are not traditional political disagreements on policy; these are two sets of people arguing from completely different worlds – the world of reality versus the world of fantasy.
On social issues, the same pattern holds. The reality-based view is that Britain has made serious, measurable progress on race relations while still having further to go. The fantasy-based class insist Britain remains defined by its colonial past and is a cesspit of racism. Every social and many economic issues must be seen through this light. Reparations are necessary, even to nations that held slaves longer than the UK – despite Britain taking the leading role in abolishing the slave trade (British institutions like the Church and National Trust that have fallen into fantasy thinking).
The Jason Arday case is, sadly, now the sharpest illustration of this divide available to us. To the reality-based class, it was a story about institutions so desperate to be seen making a “progressive point” they abandoned scrutiny, duty of care and their commitment to excellence to put a fantasist on a pedestal. To the fantasy-based class, the investigation itself into Jason Arday was the injustice; it was a witch hunt fuelled by racism. The evidence – that he has plagiarised or made up much of his academic research, that his claims of running multiple marathons in short succession were false, that he was in a coma for six months in his book proposal but somehow not in his book – does not matter. The tragic case of Jason Arday confirms their fantasy-fuelled worldview.
What are the implications of this new divide?
First, we must recognise that the views of the fantasy-based class are actively dangerous to Britain. Take the calls to shut down freedom of the press in the wake of Jason Arday’s death; take the number of lives that could be saved if we moved to a healthcare system worthy of a first-world country; take the capital flight and scarring economic damage that a wealth tax would cause.
Second, having established this danger, we must try to lessen it by winning over some of the fantasy-based class and dragging them back to reality. When those of us in the reality-based class speak to those in the fantasy-based class, we must stop assuming the facts we present will win the argument. This class trades in emotions. We must win the argument on
evidence and empathy. We must make the case that the reality-based position is not a callous one. We must show that wanting a better healthcare system which saves lives is not indifference to the healthcare of the poor; that pointing out Britain’s real record on race is not a denial of the existence of racism; that insisting taxes are already at a post-war high is not contempt for the low-paid. At Fighting for a Free Future, we are trying to push a version of liberty and the free market that is imaginative and attractive. That plays on both the evidence and emotions. The true class divide in Britain makes this a necessity. If facts were enough, the free market movement would have won years ago.
The reality-based class and the fantasy-based class are the new divide in Britain. It is a divide between those who use the facts of the world to inform and update their views, and those who use emotions and feelings. This sharp divide cannot be overcome easily, but Britain will not fix itself until reality wins out.
Harry Richer is the director of Fighting for a Free Future, under Chairman the Rt Hon Steve Baker. He has worked as a senior aide in the British parliament and has also co-written multiple publications on Austrian School economics, including the 2024 Springer book The Age of Debt Bubbles