We've just published a huge set of polling from @FrankLuntz on the new values and language of British politics. You can find the full thing here, but I thought I'd summarise the most arresting findings. (Warning: long, but worthwhile) cps.org.uk/media/press-re…
First things first: the public is really pissed off! Solid majority for 'fuck 'em all' to both business and political leaders
Likewise, when we asked them to pick the words that represented their feelings towards same, they were overwhelmingly negative
(Quick ops note: Frank's method is to give people a load of choices and ask them to pick their top two/three/four. Hence percentages adding to more than 100.)
Not to belabour the point, but when you ask people what politicians are in it for, this is the answer you get...
And likewise, these were their top picks when asked to describe British businesses.
As I wrote in my @thesundaytimes column, there's a huge challenge here for free market types like me - it's not just that people don't like business, but that messages and language around aspiration, competitiveness, entrepreneurship just don't resonate thetimes.co.uk/article/aspira…
So what do voters want instead? Well, here are their top picks.
They're worried about the NHS...
They're worried about crime and increasingly about cost of living - expect both to start hitting the headlines much more often...
And they're worried about the gap between rich and poor, especially Labour voters.
Politically, the big gap between Tory and Labour (which I want to write about more) is optimism vs pessimism. That may be down to who's in power, or it may be deeper-rooted. The gap in these three questions is fascinating in terms of, essentially, whether Britain is broken
There's lots in the survey about woke, cancel culture etc, but that's been covered elsewhere so I won't go into it here. But the age breakdown here is utterly fascinating, which goes hand in hand with the party breakdown above.
There is loads of utterly fascinating stuff in the survey (that link again here cps.org.uk/media/press-re…), but I'll finish on some personal highlights
This is from the business questions we asked, but applies more widely. Climate change isn't a partisan issue any more. Uniquely (says Frank), the right and the left are both concerned about it.
(Uniquely as in vs other countries.)
Climate is also the exception to the rule that, as Frank told the Sunday Telegraph, people mostly just want companies to shut up about CSR and purpose and focus on doing a better job for their workers and customers telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/0…
Other striking findings: always call yourself an employer, never a business, and delete 'corporation' from the dictionary.
Even Tory voters care about protecting the poorest and most vulnerable
Overwhelmingly, we all think we put in more than we get out...
...and that government is wasting the cash it already spends, either on the rich (Labour) or immigrants/scroungers (Tories). (Stunningly low figures for 'the poor', 'people like me', 'hardworking taxpayers' etc.)
I don't think it's in the slide deck, but it is also impossible to overstate how much Tory voters hate foreign aid spending. Sorry, Andrew Mitchell, but they're not with you on this.
Finally, a quick illustration of why the Tories are in a better position than Labour. Both the public and Tory voters prefer the party of today to Cameron's (though there is a lingering pash for Thatcher). But everyone still misses Mr Tony
And obviously please follow me, Frank and @CPSThinkTank for more insight, both from his survey work and our amazing team of researchers
PS For those asking why the language differs on the final slide between ‘hate’ and ‘strongly oppose’, it’s a typo. We changed it for both but didn’t update properly.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
‘If you want to raise serious money, it is a childish fantasy to pretend that you can do so solely from the few rather than the many.’ Me in @thetimes today on why Labour MPs and activists calling for a wealth tax need to grow up fast. Thread fellows (1/?)
The same Labour voices who blocked welfare reforms, forcing Reeves to raise taxes, are now calling for all manner of other goodies - while pretending that the necessary tax rises can be simple and painless. But they absolutely can’t.
As I point out in my column (link below), we already tax the rich! Let’s look at the income tax stats.
The problem isn’t that the Chancellor is going to raise taxes. It’s that unless something drastic changes, she and her successors are going to have to do it again, and again, and again. Me for @thetimes - thread follows (1/?)
My column today is on Reeves’s tax rises. But my core argument is that what we’re seeing is the earlier-than-expected arrival of what’s always been coming - an irreconcilable clash between how much we want to spend, and how much we can afford to. thetimes.com/comment/column…
Obviously, Labour’s tax rises, and the summer of uncertainty that preceded them, were horrendous for growth - and as @ArmitageJim says in this great analysis piece, we’re in for exactly the same summer thetimes.com/uk/politics/ar…
I am normally a slavish devotee of @Dannythefink, but I think this on the Online Safety Act misses the mark profoundly (1/?) thetimes.com/comment/column…
Danny's thesis is that the OSA has just come in, and we should approach it with an open mind until we know how it's actually working. But that ignores everything about how the OSA was put together, and in particular the staggering ignorance shown by lawmakers during that process.
Everyone who knew even the slightest bit about tech had profound concerns about this law, ranging from the core idea of 'legal but harmful' speech, to the chilling effect on tech investment, to the way a law meant to target Google/Meta would actually entrench their dominance.
New analysis from @CPSThinkTank today shows the state is spending almost £24k for every adult in the UK. As I say in my column, this means we are likely spending more than *every single one of us is earning*. And it’s only going to get worse. (1/?)
Why is it going to increase? Because of the lie at the heart of the spending review. Reeves wanted to end austerity - but there wasn’t any money. So she put all the increases into the first half of the parliament.
That means Labour is set to go into the election off the back of more ‘Tory austerity’ - overall departmental spending rising by just 1% a year, but much, much less for most departments given that includes 3% pa for the NHS (which is, as ever, getting most of the extra cash).
Starmer says Whitehall is filled with 'a cottage industry of checkers and blockers'. It’s too hard 'for the most enterprising people in country to just get on with the job'. So he's going to cut compliance costs for firms by 25%. Great! Just a few minor problems... (1/?)
In his speech, Starmer cited Alison, a brewer and publican, who has to spend hours filling in forms. But Alison is about to be hammered by NIC rises and minimum wage hikes!
Then there's the Employment Rights Bill, voted through the Commons on literally the same day as Starmer's speech, which will... raise compliance costs for business, by between £0.9bn & £4.5bn (though we'll come back to that).
Welfare reform is not just a fiscal necessity, but a moral one - because as I argue in @thetimes today we're not just paying people off, but writing them off. (1/?)
The govt is set to announce a rumoured £5bn in benefit cuts. It's already hugely controversial. Yet as I point out in my column today, it would cover just 1/16th of the predicted increase in the welfare bill. thetimes.com/comment/column…
Of course, a lot of that is pensions (hi, triple lock!). But the other big driver is ill health. Today, 9.3 million people of working age are economically inactive, and 6m on out of work benefits. Of those, 2.8 million are inactive due to illness - up from 2m before the pandemic.