The topics in this chapter all touch on something visceral for voters. And more than other topics, responses seem highly instinctive. In Chapter 3 we saw how social psychology can help political parties understand that if first responses are informed by intuition and emotion, appealing to someone’s apparent economic self-interest will, in some cases, fail to strike a chord with voters. It can also help explain why two people of otherwise shared values can completely miss where the other is coming from on an issue like homes or immigration, because views on these topics can be disproportionately informed by emotional reaction. This is not in any way to suggest that a response driven by emotion is somehow inferior to reason. We are all, regardless of educational level or class or income, emotional as well as rational beings. But it does mean that political parties need to recognise that when it comes to people’s homes and their communities, instinct will play a significant role. It should also help them understand that their reactions, and those of their supporters, are also in part intuitive, and that believing they are superior’ rational beings because they think they make the better argument is unlikely to win votes.

Take, for example, Inheritance Tax, a duty paid on death on estates worth over £325,000 (as of 2017). Although most people will never pay it, it would actually be in the vast majority of the country’s economic interests for it to at least be maintained, if not increased, and redistributed to other causes such as healthcare. However, voters of all incomes and classes are generally opposed to the tax and any plans to extend it.1 Taken together with public reaction to the proposal in the 2017 Conservative manifesto for social care fees to be paid on estates at death, it is safe to assume that voters view the home and the wealth that has been accumulated as deeply personal.