ERROL PARKER | Editor-at-large | Contact
Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor has reportedly wasted hours of his arguably valuable time this morning by attempting to use game theory to show that engaging in a culture war with Labor is pointless and the campaign should be focusing on policy.
Game theory is the study of strategic interactions where the outcome for each participant depends on the choices of others. A Nash equilibrium occurs when no “player” in the “game” can improve their outcome by changing their strategy unilaterally, which means each player’s decision is the best response to the choices of others. At this point, no one has an incentive to deviate, making the outcome stable. It applies to economics, politics, and even everyday decisions, where individuals or groups must anticipate the reactions of others when making choices.
When Taylor was a Rhodes Scholar studying a Master of Philosophy at Oxford University, he developed a strong interest in game theory, which was theorised by US mathematician John Nash. He has used that knowledge throughout his life in the private sector, where he became independently wealthy through a litany of ethically-questionable industries and allegedly kept money off shore in the Caribbean. That is neither here nor there with regards to what Taylor did this morning.
He called a meeting this morning with key Coalition decision makers such as the unsinkable Barnaby Joyce, firm handshake enjoyer David Littleproud and supreme overlord, Peter Dutton, and Member for Kennedy Bob Katter in attendance.
“Now,” Angus said.
“We can use this, uh, theory to show and most importantly prove that engaging in a culture war with the government will not serve us well and we will lose and guess what, [Andrew] Hastie will be in your seat, Peter, so you better listen up,”
“I’ll spare you the mathematics behind it but if we want the best chance of winning the election, our strategy should focus on policy rather than engaging in a culture war. With a locked-in conservative base of around 40%, we need swing voters to push us over 50%. A culture war approach might energise our core supporters but risks alienating the very swing voters we need, reducing our overall chances of victory. On the other hand, a policy-focused campaign has a better chance of winning over moderates and disillusioned voters, giving us a path to government. Do you guys follow me?”
Katter squinted his eyes.
“Well, uh, in game theory terms, the Nash equilibrium suggests that if voters react negatively to a culture war campaign, the quote — unquote best response for the Coalition is to focus on policies that appeal to a broader audience. Right? Shit like meaningless fiscal sugar hits in the form of tax cuts in return for poorer services, yada, yada, yadas. But if we instead double down on divisive cultural issues, our opponents are likely to capitalise on that backlash, making it harder for us to win. See, it’s pretty simple? Since a policy-driven approach gives us a higher probability of securing 50% of the vote, avoiding the culture war is the rational choice.”
“Any questions?”
There were no questions. Angus opened his mouth, bowed his head and sighed.
“Do you guys want to see the workings or?”
More to come.
