Naked Capitalism has the article Beat the Right Wing Framing: How to Make the Case for a Better, Fairer Economy.
We believed the public endorsed a right wing story about the economy because progressives had failed to come up with an alternative. There weren’t that many progressive spokespeople on current affairs programmes, and when they were it was like they didn’t know what to say. So four organisations came together to understand how British people understood the economy and what new story could be told to persuade them to share our ideas. The four organisations that led the project were NEF (New Economics Foundation), NEON (New Economy Organisers Network), PIRC (Public Interest Research Centre) and the Frameworks Institute.
As I have seen it for a long time, during and after the depression with all of FDR’s programs in place, people understood the purpose of the programs because they had endured the problems they were meant to fix. As time went on, the experience of the problems and their solutions faded into memories of those who had lived through the era, and were not in the memories of people born after the era. Progressives failed to explain the history while conservatives worked hard to explain their version of history. Without correcting this disparity in narratives, progressives were at an extreme disadvantage.
This article interested me because I see the need. I am not convinced, yet, that these people have the answer.
I had never heard of zero hour contracts until reading this article. That problem was easy to fix with a Google search of the internet which came up with the article Q&A: What are zero-hours contracts?
Zero-hours contracts, or casual contracts, allow employers to hire staff with no guarantee of work.
They mean employees work only when they are needed by employers, often at short notice. Their pay depends on how many hours they work.
Some zero-hours contracts require workers to take the shifts they are offered, while others do not.
Sick pay is often not included, although holiday pay should be, in line with working time regulations.
The other problem with the original article is that the stories it suggests are just too childlike. The article itself suggests that you read the report behind the article before trying to deploy any of the stories they have developed. I can certainly see that the article itself does not arm you with what you need to tell the progressive side of the story.