By Tim Horton
Recent polling from YouGov@Cambridge on attitudes to the state, tax and spending, conducted as part of a large-scale survey of UK voters in May 2011, throws up some challenges for both the political left and right. But it also highlights the value of scratching beneath the surface of conventional survey questions on these issues.
First, the cuts. A lot of polling over the last year has asked the public what they think about the cuts. But, of course, 'the cuts' mean different things depending on whether you think they are temporary belt-tightening, on the one hand, or rolling back the state for good, on the other. Last summer David Cameron made clear his own view that the cuts should be permanent: "Should we cut things now and go back later and try and restore them?", he asked a public audience; I think we should be trying to avoid that approach".
But the survey responses suggest the public overwhelmingly want the cuts to be temporary. Of all those expressing an opinion, 69% think that "the cuts in public spending the Government is currently making should be temporary. The Government should increase spending on public services again when the public finances are in better shape", while just 22% think that "the cuts in public spending the Government is currently making should be permanent. The Government should look to reduce its role for the long term". A further 9% opt for neither. (Including 'don't knows', the figures are: 64% temporary, 20% permanent, 8% neither, 8% don't know.)
Responses to another survey question also suggest that those wanting a small state as an end in itself are in a minority. As well as giving people the standard options of increasing tax and spending, reducing them or holding them the same, the question also added another option: "What matters most is not the overall level of spending and taxes, but the willingness and ability of the Government to tax fairly and spend efficiently". Of those expressing an opinion, 64% picked this last option; 23% picked reducing tax and spending, 8% picked increasing tax and spending, and 5% thought the current balance was about right. (Including 'don't knows', the figures are: 58% what matters most is fairness and efficiency, 21% reduce tax and spending, 7% increase tax and spending, 5% current balance about right, 10% don't know.)
A similar question specifically on benefit spending shows the same phenomenon, although with a larger proportion favouring cuts, no doubt reflecting broader public concerns about welfare. Asked to choose between increasing tax and benefits, reducing them, holding them the same or "What matters is not whether taxes and benefits go up or down, but whether the Government uses the money fairly and sensibly", this last option was again the most popular. Of those expressing an opinion, 39% picked this last option; 37% picked reducing tax and benefits, 18% picked increasing tax and benefits, and 7% thought the current balance was about right. (Including 'don't knows', the figures are: 35% what matters most is fairness, 33% reduce tax and benefits, 16% increase tax and benefits, 6% current balance about right, 10% don't know.)
These findings suggest that traditional political debates may be missing what is important to many members of the public, which is not the overall size of the state or the welfare budget, considered in the abstract, but rather whether or not the revenue is being spent on measures that they see as fair.
Another couple of questions highlight some important challenges for supporters of the welfare state. Asked whether or not they think government is 'part of the problem' or 'part of the solution', the most popular option is the former. Of those expressing an opinion, 37% agreed that "in general, I think government gets in the way and makes my life and that of my family harder. Overall, it's part of the problem not the solution", with just 26% agreeing that "in general, I think government is a force for good. It helps improve my life and that of my family. It's normally part of the solution not the problem", a further 20% agreeing that "in general, government doesn't really seem to have much impact on my life or that of my family", and a further 17% agreeing with none of these. (Including 'don't knows', the figures are: 32% government part of the problem, 23% government part of the solution, 17% doesn't have much impact, 15% none, 13% don't know.) So even if they like public services, people are often suspicious of 'government', posing a real challenge for advocates of greater state provision.
Finally, the survey asked people to judge whether they and their immediate family are gainers or losers from the welfare state. Despite the fact that distributional analyses of tax, benefits and services suggest that a majority of households are net gainers from the welfare state, 55% of respondents thought they were net losers, believing that "the benefits and public services we receive are worth less than the taxes we pay", with just 8% thinking they were net gainers (believing that "the benefits and public services we receive are worth more than the taxes we pay") and just 15% thinking that "the benefits and public services we receive are worth about the same as the taxes we pay" (a further 22% were not sure). Strikingly, even 50% of older respondents (aged 55 and over) - who, through pensions, healthcare and care services, are typically receiving substantially more than they are paying in - think they are net losers, with just 10% thinking they are net gainers. Campaigners for a more generous welfare state may well struggle to make their case while such large numbers of the public believe they are losers from the collective enterprise of tax and spending.
For better or worse, political arguments about the state, tax and spending will dominate this Parliament. Survey questions such as these can help us look beneath standard polling on the subject to try and understand better this complex and fascinating terrain of public opinion.
Tim Horton is Research Director of the Fabian Society and a guest-expert with YouGov@Cambridge. For further analysis of this polling data, see the latest issue of the Fabian Review at www.fabians.org.uk