Political and economic strategy is dynamic, not static

Recently, much has been said about surveys and political polls. Some argue that the polls do not reflect what is happening on the ground or the PL’s performance in government. They say the PL did well, with social benefits and historical economic and social achievements that few thought possible in 2013. However, the electorate seems disengaged from politics, and this is not due to a single factor.

The economy is growing, and the government’s fiscal performance is on track with the current Stability and Growth Pact and the Six-Pack and Two-Pack rules. Credit rating agencies see fiscal performance as outpacing other member states and developed countries. This is due to high economic growth, the fiscal surplus before the Covid-19 pandemic, and the current government’s fiscal strategy. Without these positive economic factors, we would have been on a different, much worse trajectory. However, from a political perspective, the electorate, or part of it, is not feeling the positive effects of economic growth because the feel-good factor and momentum were lost after two economic shocks. As I explained before, a K-shaped economy fuels more disengagement.

Besides fiscal elements, those in power or perhaps around them, must also be politicians and strategists. Many still have a 2013 mindset, and some are stuck in an even older one. The electorate has changed, along with its mindset and mood. The PL is also falling for irrelevant narratives from influencers on Facebook. Facebook does not represent the electorate’s mood. In fact, it is the opposite. If you see something gaining momentum on Facebook, wait until the dust settles before responding and do exactly the opposite. That is a strategy. To make matters worse, the public sector is run under strict rules. I still meet people who asked for a transfer in 2023 and 2024 and are still waiting. Asking for a transfer has become so bureaucratic and cumbersome that it seems the system was designed to prevent it. The PL in government must ensure that, where possible and deserved, public sector employees who request a transfer are granted one, and then a replacement is found. And it must not be at the discretion of one director. When someone asks, or begs, for a transfer, they are politely saying they are unhappy. There is no other way to see it. And they cannot say it to their employer. Asking for a transfer is not the same as asking for a promotion. This disregard to people’s concerns has eroded the feel-good factor.

If the electorate is thinking differently, then the PL in government must adjust, not the electorate. This is why I keep calling for a mind shift. Otherwise, things will not go as predicted. The economy is doing well. The PL in government performed well and provided many opportunities. If there are no funds and the economy does not grow, the same opportunities cannot be offered. Remote working, flexible hours, and accelerating projects are crucial in the coming months to give employees breathing space. The PL in government has created wealth, and they must spread it more equitably to reach those not feeling its effects. Affordable housing is one sector. People are seeking not only financial support but also government action to reduce market pressures. As I said, some of those designing and executing policies are disengaged from the electorate, and this shows in the electorate’s mood.

In the coming months, the government must ensure that policy is implemented smoothly and that strategy is adjusted to appeal to the current electorate. I know it is not always easy to appease the electorate. However, the PL must focus on the work and ignore spoilers. There are many of them on the opposite benches. When, we economists, study Game theory, we are not simply analysing mathematical models. We are studying strategy. Indeed, in Game theory, we learn that outcomes rarely depend on isolated decisions, whether in markets, diplomacy, regulation, or competition. Well, they depend on timing, expectations, credibility, and the information each player holds. For instance, the first‑mover advantage is not just about acting early; it is about shaping the strategic landscape before others have the chance to respond. Knowledge, too, becomes a form of power. Knowing what others know, knowing what they think you know, and understanding how information, or the lack of it, influences behaviour is crucial. In this sense, strategy is not a linear process but an interactive one, where every move anticipates a counter‑move, and every decision is made with an eye on the decisions of others.

And this is why the government requires strategic people on board. The best economists use such strategies daily, especially if they have a political mindset, to make choices under uncertainty and invest their strategies wisely. On the other hand, routine economists focus on numerical analysis and often fixate on past data, failing to consider broader strategic implications. They may be skilled at detailing what has happened in the economy, but they lack the foresight to guide future strategies. Strategic economists combine numerical skills with awareness of changing socio-economic dynamics, allowing them to anticipate trends and advise on adaptive strategies. You can identify them by their track record of predicting key economic shifts and their ability to simplify complex topics. Those lacking such qualities are either routine economists or not fit to advise on policy and politics.

The advantage of previous personnel around the government was their political and strategic mindset. Today, we lack one or the other. Having a political, analytical, and economic mind is rare. Those who think everything can be solved with a campaign are wrong. Just look at what happened in 2024. The answer is clear.