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
On Wednesday, the Climate Change Committee will publish a document far more important than any Budget or industrial strategy - because it will set the terms of trade for the British economy for years. (1/?)
The Seventh Carbon Budget gives the govt its official blueprint for how much carbon we can emit in 2038-42 - and where emissions need to be before then, and (crucially) what kind of things might need to be done to reach those targets.
These targets, once adopted, are legally binding. The govt can be, and has been, sued for not having an adequate plan. The problem is, they also require us to do some pretty dramatic things - which get more dramatic the further we are from hitting the targets.
The triple lock is a wasteful, unfair and outdated policy. So why the hysteria when politicians even gesture towards questioning it? Thread, with charts and data and stuff. (1/?)
As I say in my column today, the purpose of the triple lock - which sees the state pension rise by the highest of earnings, inflation or 2.5% - was to restore the value of the state pension, and tackle pensioner poverty. It’s succeeded.
Today, according to official statistics, pensioners are substantially less likely than those of working age to be in poverty after housing costs are taken into account.
Why did the Tories lose the election? Can they recover? If so, how? Today, @CPSThinkTank publishes a major piece of work by James Frayne, based on pre-election polling of 4,000 people plus immersive work and focus groups in key electoral battlegrounds. So what did we find? 🧵
The first and most obvious point: the Tories lost the election because people thought they were crap at running the country. In particular, they failed to deliver on the most important issues people cared about: cost of living, small boats, NHS waiting lists, GP appointments.
There was also a very strong sense – esp among working-class voters – that the party only cared about the rich (one reinforced by the mini-Budget). For middle-class voters, the core issue was competence rather than values, although their views were equally apocalyptic.
Grrr. @Ed_Miliband's team have responded to our critique of their assumptions on gas prices - but their rebuttal is simply not true. (1/?) telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/2…
They told the @Telegraph that 'the gas price modelled in the report is based on the current price of gas'. It absolutely isn't!
@Telegraph Annex 4 does say that the report uses 'the 2023 value' for gas prices, which also happens to be close to the level in Oct 2024. But 2023 was a weird, wild year!
The big story today is about a Cabinet minister being dishonest. But there’s another member of the Cabinet whose cavalier approach to the facts may cost Britain an awful lot more - @Ed_Miliband. (See what I did there?) 🧵
I’ve talked before about his promise - which he keeps bloody making - to save everyone £300 on their energy bills. This is, for the reasons I've repeatedly outlined, an outright lie. But now there’s something a lot bigger.
On taking office, Ed asked the National Energy System Operator to report on his plan to decarbonise the grid. He claims this ‘independent, expert analysis’ provides ‘conclusive proof that clean power by 2030 is not only achievable but also desirable’ - and will cut bills.
I can't believe that @Ed_Miliband is still using that £300 figure, but here is a quick recap of why it is hugely misleading - in fact, nakedly dishonest. (1/?)
The report comes from Ember, a pro-green consultancy set up by Bryony Worthington, a Labour peer and Miliband ally. It claims, as does Miliband, that 'a clean power system saves UK households £300 per year'.
But that is massively out, for two reasons. First, it takes its starting point the level of the energy price cap in Q3 2023, of £2,074 - which was still hugely elevated as a result of the Ukraine crisis. It has now fallen to £1,717.