We must question the narratives that shape our public space if we are to have any certainty in the body of policies that guide us.

A political battle is won when your opponents adopt your framing of an issue in their own arguments. The way we talk about social problems, their sources and their dangers shapes our amenability to specific policy remedies. It primes us to accept a particular worldview as accurate, along with the social problems it identifies and the course of action it proposes. I have talked about this many times already. It is a key issue at the heart of what Amplified seeks to do and obvious though it may sound, it’s usually ignored – particularly in an age in which political debate is underpinned by a tacit consensus on the usefulness of neo-liberal economics.

Public debate is swamped with denials of the social causes of deprivation and disadvantage. Perversely, there is no such thing as society in the Big Society. The individual alone is the subject of praise and recrimination, the recipient of reward, incentive and admonishment. Individual responsibility and merit alone explain success and failure; they also justify coercion and recompense. Inequality of opportunity has all but vanished from the public space. All that remains is individual choice.

The worthy wealth creators and hardworking homeowners sit in one camp while the destitute, the invalid and the jobless are shown the error of their ways. If society plays no part in their predicament, the wicked must be shown the virtuous path through penitence. The law is no longer there for the vulnerable, but for the upright citizens and the paragons of success – for their economic and social advantages are a reflection of their own merit. No example is better than the abolishment of the so-called “squatters’ rights” to offer further protection than what already existed for hardworking homeowners. This riles me despite my own experience as a homeowner whose house was quite literally devastated by an unwelcome guest. The law should favour the needy, the vulnerable and the disadvantaged. It’s the very least it can do.

I write about the stories we tell in our public space because they are the mechanism via which ideology becomes indistinguishable from common sense. I make no secret of my own ideological bias in my writing – indeed, it would be very hard to. I truly fear that by denying the social causes of deprivation and disadvantage, we also remove our obligation to care, our very capacity for compassion, and ultimately the precious bonds that hold us together as a community with a social purpose.

The way we talk shapes the way we think and, in turn, the way we act. When ideology becomes common sense, there is little room left for manoeuvre and debate. That is why the right questions need to be asked at the right time. We must question the narratives that shape our public space if we are to have any certainty in the body of policies that guide us.