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
What many people within Labour seems to be assuming is that they have some kind of financial/policy wiggle room. They don't. (1/?)
Here are the assumptions the OBR was making in its March forecast. The numbers have already deteriorated substantially - in particular gilt yields (up), GDP (down) and inflation (up). And they may get far worse yet.
But even under those sunnier assumptions, the public finances were still being run on a wing and a prayer. In particular, to pay for her initial spending splurge, Reeves pencilled in neo-austerity for the back half of the parliament - effectively, real-terms departmental cuts.
Now the dust has settled from the local elections, it's time to talk about vote-rigging. In particular, the way in which a sinister force has been manipulating British democracy in council after council, year after year. That force? The goddamn alphabet. (1/?)
Here are the top six candidates from the ward where I live, Battersea Park in Wandsworth. Notice anything? They're in perfect alphabetical order. The same happened when I checked out another ward where a friend was standing, Wandsworth Town.
The effect is just as noticeable when the parties aren't bunched together. In Furzedown, for example, the leading four parties went ABC, ACB, ABC, ABC. What are the chances?
If migrants are net contributors, why are so many in poverty? Me for @thetimes on how Emily Thornberry blew up the Left's case for mass migration times-comment.com/thornberry-mig…
Quick summary: Thornberry cites @IPPR analysis showing that of 4.3m children in (relative) poverty, 1.5m are from migrant families. Of the 309k children affected by ILR extension, 130k could be in poverty by 2029 thanks to being denied access to benefits for longer.
@IPPR But this (of course) blows up the argument about contribution! In fact it's an explicit argument for us to do more to subsidise new arrivals, even though the risk of subsidising huge numbers of non-contributors was the big justification for ILR reform in the first place.
There are lots of reasons to be depressed about how the British state is run. But as per my @thetimes column, the story of the deregulation programme is the ultimate ‘there are no ninjas’ eye-opener. (1?)
Exactly a year ago, @Keir_Starmer stood up and promised ‘fundamental reform of the British state’. This included cutting compliance costs for businesses by a quarter. But there was a problem.
Whitehall did not know how much those compliance costs were. It wasn’t even clear, at the time of the speech, what exactly the PM meant by ‘compliance costs’.
Have written my column on one of the most interesting political essays I've ever read, because it argues that essentially everything modern British politicians think about political and economic strategy is completely wrong. (1/?)
The full thing doesn't seem to be available online, but its core argument over 35 pages is, essentially, that voters are not idiots - that if you do tough, necessary stuff and explain it, you will end up in a better place than via relentless short-term pandering.
Douglas - Labour finance minister in NZ in the 1980s - basically out-Thatchered Thatcher. He argues that the stuff voters ended up hating was always where the govt chickened out - and that sweeping action is actually safer than small steps, because it outflanks vested interests.
Striking findings from @NatCen on migration. View that it is a cultural/economic negative has risen sharply post-Boriswave, but overall levels still not as negative as pre-Brexit. But there has also been huge polarisation... (1/3)
As @Sirjohncurtice says (this is screenshot from Zoom), those on right are even more -ve about migration than previously - but those on left still think it's broadly a good thing.
@Sirjohncurtice Obviously overall all the polling shows people think migration has been way too high - and as @Dominic2306 says don't even realise how high it's been - but what is new is this wide and widening gap b/t left on right on whether migration is a good thing full stop.