I think this introduction to a chapter in the most recent British Social Attitudes survey is so significant that I am sharing it in full:
The survey is now a year or two out of date. What the Tories have done since 2021 to try to wreck the NHS may clearly have had an impact on attitudes. It could, of course, have reinforced the desire for better public services.
Three points do stand out. First, Labour created a contented public.
Second, the Tories have done the opposite.
Third, only a tiny proportion of UK society accepts the Truss / Tufton Street argument that we must, as a country, spend less to cut taxes.
A poll:
What is your attitude towards spending on health, education and social benefits?
- I think we should spend more and accept that this might result in higher tax bills for some, at least (97%, 543 Votes)
- I think we should cut the level of spend and as a result cut taxes (1%, 7 Votes)
- I think the level of spend and tax is about right (1%, 4 Votes)
- I'm abstaining, but show me the results anyway (1%, 4 Votes)
Total Voters: 558
Loading ...Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It’s quite enlightening that the vast bulk of the graph is an 2-way interplay between keeping current levels and increasing taxing/spending.
Cutting taxing/spending, despite the huge publicity given to it, and the apparent obsession of politicians with it, remains very much a minority pursuit.
1% hold more wealth than 80% of the population. Change the tax system, so that wealth & gains are charged like income from work. Get Charles saxe coburg & Gothe & the Duke of Westminster, for starters to pay their due in inheritance tax. That should go a long way. I’d also revoke charitable status of private schools & that lot of economic terrorists in Tufton Street.
I think the problem is that the 5% or so of the electorate advocating reduced taxation and spending on public services are the wingnuts selecting the Tory politicians and Prime Ministers.
True
And they have wealth
We are told that the current level of tax is at the highest its ever been. Clearly we have an ageing population and people live longer than in the past so pension expenditure will be higher, but I think we need to be far clearer and do a re-evaluation of where we are spending the current tax take. It feels like a large % is just being handed over to Tory party mates via assorted routes, for example PFI, subsidising privatised industries, etc is like a great hole in the bucket.
I don’t feel that in the current poor wages for many people that an across the board tax increase is viable, so it needs a more subtle question really. We certainly need to improve public services, but I think we are being blind sided by how much of “public services” are now delivered by private companies who are all taking their profits out of the system.
There is a very good question to ask as to what we get for this
Front line services are failing
Why are we spending so much?
In the NHS vast amounts is wasted on the Trust structure
I suspect that is also true in education trusts
In universities I see very large numbers of people who do jobs I really do not understand the value of.
I think that is where the problem is
But it is not just a state sector issue: the obsession with brand, media and image control wastes vast amounts everywhere
This is the GERS issue, only on the big stage. For those not interested in the perversity that is Scottish funding, according to GERS Scotland is effectively responsible for virtually the whole British deficit. Scotland has almost the lowest UK unemployment and is one of the wealthiest areas, on most economic measures; but hey, this is Britain; you will never figure it out, because the system is designed to be impenetrable.
I know there are tasks and hence jobs within the current structures whose value is debatable. My point is that an enormous amount of “public service” is not provided by the public service – eg army recruitment was outsourced , and I think Passport Office is. Enormous amounts of the NHS is now in the private sector eg pathology labs, ambulance services, ditto police forensic departments , CAPITA provides “back office” services to lots and lots of public sector bodies. They all take a profit and do not provide a more efficient / effective service than the one provided by public sector workers. All of them should require some oversight / contract management that is another additional cost. etc etc.
IE an amount which I suspect is significant is being lost from actual service provision.
Then there are all the subsidies eg to the rail franchises etc.
Labour if it was worthy of the name opposition would be doing in-depth analysis of this and planning to do something about it. I’m not holding my breath.
Understood
And a justified concern
All good points Richard but how did all the privatisation/trusts and the sick joke ‘regulators’ come about? Simple really – a p/poor Labour party. It should have been easy for Labour politicians to dissect Thatcher’s ridiculous arguments about efficiency and cost savings but they were useless and that was when the unions had real strength.
My wife spent her working life in the NHS as a ward sister and then as a teacher/lecturer in paediatric nursing. . When the Tories brought in ‘managers’ as the first action of privatisation I said to her – ‘when they arrive on day one refuse to recognise their existence, just totally ignore them’. I had a much more effective way to deal with them permanently but that would be asking far too much of the passive Brits.
1997 will go down in history as the worst betrayal of the UK people as a whole. The elite have total control of the media, police, Special Branch/MI5/MI6 and the mercenary armed services. The vast majority of the population are consumer junkies living their ‘lives’ on credit/debt. I’d like someone to explain how control by the elite can be loosened. Neither the Nasties or the Pink Tories are ever going to allow P/R to come about. I cannot see a peaceful way to bring about change and any talk of revolution, which would anyway degenerate into a counter revolution aka Russia/China/North Korea would scare the hell out of Mr & Mrs Average.
Very depressing but this is reality in the UK today. Less so on the mainland but the general trend is to total corporate control. In the old days we had robber barons, they still are but today they wear Armani suits instead of armour and the men at arms have been replaced by the police/Special Branch etc.
I hate to tell you, but there is no coordinated big state
There may be an elite but there is no elite of the sort you claim that coordinates and controls as mush as you suggest
Many are already being roped into paying higher levels of tax due to the deliberate policy of freezing tax bands and, in particular, the lower tax threshold.
I don’t think anyone living at this end of the spectrum would be welcoming the prospect of contributing increased tax as their situation is already under pressure.
In principle I do believe people should be making a contribution to the services they need to use, so the challenge is to find a way of increasing their remuneration so that can be fairly taxed.
A middle earner on £40k might grumble about a 5% raise but someone on £15 to 20k is still being gutted if they get 10%.
Wage increases may be better demanded, offered and reported as hard numbers rather than percentages as much of the unfairness is hidden in ignorance of either the bounty or poverty distributed by the % approach. Differentials are already way out of kilter.
If capital gains, dividends &tc were taxed together with earned income – and at the same rates – we could raise the point at which people started paying tax/NI & all the other bands. And still afford better services.
True
But we would need NI on them as well – or an investment income surcharge
Just been listening to an interesting talk about consultants in government. 0.5% of government spending, mostly in secrecy. That’s £5 billion. The government has now set up a consultancy to look at how they can reduce consultancy in government!
McKinsey at the head of it, of course.
There’s some money we can spend on something else.
Mariana Mazzucato has written a book about the damage done by the inappropriate and increasing use of consultants: https://marianamazzucato.com/books/the-big-con
The problem is, the 5% or so who want to cut taxes have the money and political party influence to ensure they remain assuredly the least ignored constituency. Never, ever trust a political party; vote by all means, but keep your powder dry.
The only problem I have with the survey, is the presumption that you can only have more spending if you collect me taxes.
I tried to avoid that in my questions
The reality is I think spending would create the need for more taxes – inflation is a reality
Here is another way that our taxes are mis spent. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/apr/18/private-landlords-in-england-get-16bn-a-year-welfare-for-non-decent-homes
Time for compulsory purchase and conversion to social homes.
I think that it is well known that most populations appreciate public services – that is why vested interests have steered economics away from politicians and towards ‘independent’ experts like economists and ‘successful people’ to tell the population that they are wrong and that public services are unaffordable.
‘ Unaffordable’ is coded wording for ‘it prevents capital from exploiting/making money out of your needs’ BTW.
The level of support for increased taxation is quite remarkable considering the extent to which the ‘Tax Man’ has been vilified in popular culture pretty much since biblical times. Whilst I do not subscribe to the tax & spend dogma, I do quite like the simple (simplistic?) notion that tax is the membership fee we pay to live in a civilised society. Sure, keeping a few more quid of your earnings in your pocket is a nice feeling, but it ain’t going to help when you need a hip replacement.
Progressives have never, to my knowledge, controlled the narrative on taxation which partly explains why they have consistently failed to offer a compelling alternative to free market capitalism.
One of the reasons why some people are worried about advocating for an increase in tax to fund public services is simply the poverty of public discussion about wealth tax. It is almost non existent (despite the illuminating of your newsletter and a few others). The MSM (Guardian excepted) barely mention it and the BBC will not discuss it or outline the variety of possibilities to raise funds from wealth. I strongly believe that a crucial way forward for progressives is to find ways of promoting discussion of ways to rebalance the tax system so that wealth contributes far more to our collective welfare.
Agreed