Zero sum games
Zero sum games

Wouldn't it be wonderful if every football match ended in a draw? Then no one would be upset about their team losing.

Well, not really. A draw in football (or cricket, or rugby, or hockey, or other sports) can be a thrilling, gripping game, with all the spectators on the edge of their seats. But football - and every other sport - wouldn't work if every match was a draw. The whole point of sport is to have winners and losers. The World Cup Finals start out with 32 teams, and end up with just one team lifting the trophy. The other 31 have to lose for one team to win. That's the point of sport. It's a zero sum game. That means that when one team gains, the other loses. England 1, Germany 0 (if only ...) means that England win and Germany lose. They can't both win. In a knockout tournament like the World Cup, if the scores are tied at the end of the game you go on having a penalty shoot out until one side wins. You can have draws during the season in the Premier League, but you can only have one winner of the league at the end of the season. All the others are losers.

So what about life? Is it like sport? Is it one big zero-sum game?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Elections are nearly always zero-sum games. You can only have one prime minister, and one government, at a time. For Keir Starmer to become prime minister in July 2024, and for the Labour party to form a government, Rishi Sunak had to stop being prime minister, and the Conservatives had to stop governing. Sunak and the Conservatives had to lose for Starmer and Labour to win. Job and university applications also tend to be a zero sum game. If ten people apply for one job, or one university place, only one can have it. Nine people have to lose.

In the business world, it's more complex. To take an extreme example, if you buy a car from a garage for £10,000 and the next week it stops working, that was a zero-sum game; the garage gets £10,000 and you get nothing. Lucky them! Or maybe not. Once word gets round that the cars they sell all conk out within a week, no one is going to want to buy any, and they'll soon go out of business. Most businesses want their customers to feel that they are in a positive-sum game - one in which both sides gain. They get £10,000. You get thousands of miles of happy driving.

What has this got to do with debating? Positive-sum games are inherently better than zero-sum games, as more people benefit from them. Therefore, if you're proposing a measure, you want to make it sound like a positive-sum game, one from which all parties benefit; if you're opposing it, you want to make it sound like a zero-sum game, one in which the benefits are restricted to just one group.

To take an example. The motion is This house would introduce a wealth tax. The opposition argue that this is a zero-sum game. You are raising more money for the government, but only at the cost of taking it off people who have earned their money through their hard work and talent. You might say that the money will go on hospitals and schools and public transport, but this will be at the cost of disincentivising people from working hard. The government gains, but hardworking people lose. Once hardworking people realise they are losing, they will either stop working hard, or they will move to another country where their hard work is more appreciated. This will be bad for all of us, as we will lose the benefit of their hard work, talent, and taxes.

Not so, say the proposition. This is a positive-sum game. A wealth tax is good for all of us. The money raised by a wealth tax will be invested in schools and hospitals and public transport to produce a better educated, healthier population who aren't always turning up at work late because their train got cancelled. People will work harder and better. Businesses will become more productive, and therefore more profitable. Employees will get a pay rise; business owners will get back the money they paid in the wealth tax, and more. Everyone's a winner.

So, to sum up, if you're arguing against something, make it look like a zero-sum game; if you're arguing for it, make it look like a positive-sum game. Because, outside of sport, it's better when everyone wins.