Labour has shifted the electorate leftwards with a major increase in state dependency

If you need a reminder of the extent of dependency created by Gordon Brown you only need to look at today's Daily Telegraph.  One in three households across Britain are now dependent on the state for at least half its income according to a Civitas analysis of DWP data.  It is perhaps the great legacy of three consecutive terms of Labour government that they have used the last ten years of relative prosperity to build up the size of the supplicant state - particularly in their northern English, Welsh and Scottish heartlands.  They have been able to deliver this enlargement of the state without the pain of the Wilson and Callaghan years because of the relatively benign macroeconomic circumstances.

Other studies have found similar increases in dependency.  The Sunday Times noted that parts of the UK had been Soviet-ised in terms of their dependence on government spending:

"In the northeast of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, government spending exceeds 50% of their gross domestic product (GDP). In the northeast and Wales it accounts for almost 60% of the economy. In Northern Ireland it accounts for more than two-thirds of its GDP at 67%. In London and the southeast, in contrast, government spending accounts for just one-third of the economy."

This was The Business' take on the same phenomenon:

"British public sector workers are now better paid than their counterparts in the private sector, enjoy better pensions and work fewer hours. So they have good reason to be grateful to Labour; and they repay it by voting for it. Welcome to the great buy-up of the British electorate: many of Labour’s safe seats are now as socialised as the old Soviet states of Eastern Europe. Of the 200 constituencies where public-sector employment is highest, just 20% are held by the Conservatives, 70% by Labour; by contrast, in the 200 seats where the private sector employs most people, 50% are Conservative."

Today's Civitas report warns that the Chancellor's tax credits scheme is "only the most prominent example of welfare policies intended to create a grateful electorate rather than free-thinking citizens."  It makes Dame Shirley Porter's housing policies in Westminster look pretty tame.

The Tories are also criticised, however, by the scale of increase in state-dependent voters.  Civitas believes that the Conservatives are now afraid of the kind of welfare reforms enacted by Clinton-Gingrich that have helped power the US economy over the last decade and slashed dependency rates.

Comments

[Curly]

A City of Newcastle senior officer is facing stiff criticism today for even suggesting that the public sector is far too large and that the balance needs redressing. There is certainly a case for a root and branch reform (and the ability to maintain our humour!)

[HF]

and bears activities in woods surprises anyone?

What does anyone expect after 10 years of Labour in power? We probably have another 2 more years of this if we are lucky!

Meanwhile the centre right of politics is engaged in internecine arguments about issues that only a minority of the people care about. A bit like this site!

The future prosperity of this country hangs, like it did in 1979, on the chances of a Conservative victory at the next GE.

Let us all work for that.

[Stewart]

This is what we have known for a long time. We now need to highlight this fact to show to people where their tax moneys are going. It is to maintain the Labour party in power. This is a reason for emphasising that the Conservative party will cut taxes because we need to reduce state dependency. It is not appropriate for the Government to simply buy up jobs, as that is distorting the market and making economic conditions unfavourable for private industry which creates the wealth to operate.

[Sean Fear]

No surprise at all HF. Everything a left wing government does is geared towards strengthening the numbers and fortunes of its supporters, at the expense of our supporters. Unlimited immigration, and family breakdown serve the left just as well as expanding the Welfare State in achieiving this.

Fortunately, a high proportion of welfare reipients don't vote, and the two thirds who don't depend on the State are increasinly hacked off.

[Michael McGowan]

Sean is correct. Furthermore, for most of the period post-1945, the strategically-inept Tories have helped Labour to achieve this state of affairs. Given how poor state education and healthcare now are, the great public expenditure splurge post-1997 can be seen for what it always was: Labour buying votes not improving services.

The big question, HF, is whether it would really be any different now we have reverted to the the patrician Torism of the Heath era?

[ToMTom]

Labour has shifted the electorate leftwards with a major increase in state dependency

That explains Cameron's politics does it ?

Somehow if Labour can command 21.6% eligible voters and still win a majority of 66, I would suggest the headline is highly inappropriate.

Maybe the way the conservatives blew £20 million plus on the 2005 Election without anyone having seen any impact should be the basis on which value-for-money is judged

[Valedictoryan]

Gordon Brown has also made it so that a very few people foot the bill. Here’s some numbers to ponder:

• 4 million starting-rate tax payers who, after benefits, pay less than nothing.
• 22 million basic-rate tax payers who, on average, pay £2700. If they have 2 children, CTC nets that off to £300.
• 3 million higher rate taxpayers who pay £21,000 each.

Number 10's word on Inheritance Tax (which affects 6% of estates) was "Abolishing inheritance tax would therefore benefit a very few people at the expense of ordinary tax-payers". Clearly the government feels the same way about income tax, where the proportion of people who make significant net tax payments is also small. And what is an "ordinary tax-payer"? It's not a family on average income or less.

[rsj]

"Labour has shifted the electorate leftwards with a major increase in state dependency"

And Cameron proposes doing nothing about it.

[Londoner]

The Civitas report appears only to be talking about welfare (including possibly State pensions) and not State employees, so it greatly underestimates the dependance in one sense.

When one adds to that all the consultants and such like who depend on public sector work - often effectively as quasi civil servants for years at a time but at more than twice the cost of a civil servant - those of us dependant on the private sector are a minority. This does not always determine politics of course - many surgeons, for instance, at least in the early years before they build up their private practices derive more than 50% of their income from the State, and many of these might be quite right wing.

[Sean]

I am not worried about Cameron's strategy. Reminds me a bit of Howard's in 1996. You cannot change a country for the better from Opposition.

[malcolm]

This possibly explains why no matter what this government does Labours poll ratings refuse to go below 30%. Be interested to hear from those posters who are so critical of our leadership on how we should frame the debate on how to reduce the subsidy these people are receiving whilst not turning these people into rabid Labour activists! This is one of the toughests problems we face and I have to admit I can thinkof no easy answers.

[midlander]

I think it was the late Nick Budgen who said in 1996: "instead of nationalizing industry, New Labour will nationalize people".

It is a pity that the party have not raised this issue before. Hopefully George Osborne will do great things in this area.

[ToMTom]

This possibly explains why no matter what this government does Labours poll ratings refuse to go below 30%.

This is the Marxist View of life - Homo Oeconomicus. People vote Labour because they find the other options revolting, that is all.

Voting is not a rational exercise but a sentimental one. The Conservatives appeal to certain tribes South of The Wash and have spoiled their appeal to many North of the Wash.

Stop playing at Marketing/Advertising and start addressing LOCAL concerns with LOCAL candidates

[Richard]

"This is the Marxist View of life - Homo Oeconomicus. People vote Labour because they find the other options revolting, that is all."

I suspect to a large degree people do vote Labour for the purely selfish reason that they want their cushy jobs protected. Similarly many people voted Tory in the 80s because they didn't want their wallets threatened. Those weren't the only motivations but it would be foolish to rule them out.

[Sean Fear]

Oh I think vested interests are very important in determining voting intentions Tom Tom. Much of the population has a very strong vested interest in voting Labour.

[malcolm]

Good word Tomtom-Homo Oecomicus. I did not say that EVERYBODY votes the way they do from naked self interest but it is likely that very many do.I have seen little evidence throughout many years of following politics that campaigning on local issues makes more than marginal differences to voting intentions.There exceptions of course as we saw in Bleanau Gwent and Kidderminster in 2005. Stop making smartarse remarks and start addressing the problem of encouraging people not to vote Labour when their finances may depend on it.

[Michael McGowan]

One thing that should be pointed out is that Labour's policies (especially on public sector final salary pensions, ever-esclaating house prices and university tuition fees) are leading to a massive transfer of resources from the hard-pressed young to ageing babyboomers such as Blair, Brown, Peter Hain and most of the Tory Party at Westminster. So much for social justice.

Another is that current policies are unsustainable: financial services business will steadily move offshore to more competitive climates with better -educated cheaper workforces and without that and with no manufacturing base, what's left?

[Peter Hatchet]

I agree with most of the posters on this site at how clandestine and cynical Labour has been in doing this, but I also think this is another argument for a "softly, softly catchy monkey" approach.

Unfortunately, we need the votes of many of these public sector workers in key marginals to win the next election. Without them we will be unable to change anything.

To suggest we run on a radical platform NOW would not gain us these votes and would ensure we stay in opposition.

It will take 2-3 Conservative terms of gradual change to properly reform the public services. And it will require much sensitivity and tact.

We will have to take some (not all) of the public sector workers with us in order to do this.

[ToMTom]

Stop making smartarse remarks and start addressing the problem of encouraging people not to vote Labour when their finances may depend on it.

It would be good Malcolm if you started to compete for votes in the marketplace through policies people could believe in.

The simplistic excuses put out as to why Conservatives cannot win elections are a farce. There were millions of people on benefits in the 1980s because North Sea Oil was used to put people out of work. The State Sector was FAR BIGGER in 1979 than it is today but Margaret Thatcher was elected.

It is the sheer inadequacy of the Conservative Party to appeal to the electorate than anything the Labour Party does. To pretend that the Conservatives did not use their last time in office to look after their own is ridiculous. That Hanson Plc and Williams Holdings disappeared with the Conservatives is not coincidental

[Sean Fear]

Not an excuse Tom Tom, simply a recognition of reality. Turkeys don't often vote for Christmas, and it would be futile to expect people who depend on public spending for their livelihood to abandon the party which rewards them so handsomely.

That doesn't *excuse* the Conservatives for not performing better against Labour though. As it happens, we are a good deal less good at looking after our own than Labour are. If it were otherwise, we would be a more successful party.

[Michael McGowan]

Interesting isn't it, Sean, that even Labour's cultural Marxists are not vilifying the significant numbers of their core supporters who seem to be drifting BNPwards? By contrast, the Tory leadership, in its quest for an electoral pact with the Lib Dems, never ceases to abuse its core supporters who flirt with UKIP.....the latest being Gummer.

[Steve Warrick]

"As it happens, we are a good deal less good at looking after our own than Labour are..."

Help me out here Folks! What exaxtly is ne of 'our own?'

As a Geordie Tory in Newcastle I despair when I hear such remarks.

Surely, anyone who wants to use more of their own money to take more responsibility for their own and their families lives is one of 'our people'.

I swear some of the more glib posters on here, must be playing straight into Lour & Dim Leb hands, with the trite and facile remarks they post, which must be being dossiered for future use.

Taking Newcastle as the prima facie example, some of the poorest households pay some of the highest Council Tax in the UK, we need to start asking where the 'Social Justice' in this is?

And you wonder why we don't make inroads "North of the Wash".

To paraphrase the old wartime capmaign, careless words, costs votes!!

[Steve Warrick]

"As it happens, we are a good deal less good at looking after our own than Labour are..."

Help me out here Folks! What exaxtly is ne of 'our own?'

As a Geordie Tory in Newcastle I despair when I hear such remarks.

Surely, anyone who wants to use more of their own money to take more responsibility for their own and their families lives is one of 'our people'.

I swear some of the more glib posters on here, must be playing straight into Lour & Dim Leb hands, with the trite and facile remarks they post, which must be being dossiered for future use.

Taking Newcastle as the prima facie example, some of the poorest households pay some of the highest Council Tax in the UK, we need to start asking where the 'Social Justice' in this is?

And you wonder why we don't make inroads "North of the Wash".

To paraphrase the old wartime capmaign, careless words, costs votes!!

[Sean Fear]

"Help me out here Folks! What exaxtly is ne of 'our own?'
.............

Surely, anyone who wants to use more of their own money to take more responsibility for their own and their families lives is one of 'our people'."

To a large extent, you answered your own question. Our historic position of placing ourselves marginally to the Right of Labour, without attempting to set the political agenda, lets such voters down.

[Michael McGowan]

Precisely: the Tories can never win the squalid Dutch Auction, conducted according to the rules of the left, which always demands yet more public spending as the solution to all problems.

[Simon Chapman]

This is indeed an important issue which needs to be understood and addressed carefully. As others have suggested, indulging in excessive pessimism or unrealistic rhetoric won’t help.

First the scale of the problem. State spending is set to hit a whopping
45.3% of GDP next year. That is not sustainable (although you could argue that it is “stable”) and definitely needs to be reduced.

But by how far? For example, even if we reduced that over 2 parliaments to current US or Japanese levels (unlikely), state spending would still be over 36% of GDP. That’s still a huge figure. The public sector will continue to employ an enormous quantity of voters. And before we fall too far into over-simplistic “public-sector-bad-private-sector-good” arguments, let’s keep in mind how many “good” private sector jobs are also engaged in government-funded work – not just consultants, but all those construction companies working on all those PFI contracts. Defence contractors, IT contractors, equipment suppliers….(not ID cards of course).

The state payroll vote will always be with us. Clearly it’s electorally unwise to alienate it. It’s also quite wrong to do so for a host of other reasons as well. Teachers and health professionals are “goods” to be encouraged.

But many public sector workers also agree that the state is far too big and needs to be reduced. They pay tax and feel the pinch too. They are human and they bleed. They see the waste at first-hand. Importantly, many don’t think that they would become unemployed if the state was smaller. This is partly because the majority of people tend to think that they do a useful and important job – the wasteful activity that needs cutting is always done somewhere else by somebody else. And partly because experience has shown them that in many cases they may lose their existing job only to be re-organised into doing a similar sort of job somewhere else.

Clearly the state needs to shrink, and clearly this will involve job losses. But, provided we go about this in a way that gets to grips with the real problems and don’t indulge in rhetoric that frightens people who won’t lose their jobs or over-states what we can deliver (remember the comment about Mrs T speaking like a monetarist and spending like a social democrat?) we can make a reasoned and attractive case that will appeal to broad sections of the electorate whoever employs them. This BTW is the approach I think Cameron is trying to lay the ground work for.

[Denis Cooper]

I don't think it's correct or sensible or helpful to refer to people being "subsidised" or having "cushy" jobs. Just because somebody's employed in the public sector that doesn't by itself mean that they're subsidised or that their job is "cushy" - it may be ill-conceived, futile, or even counter-productive, work, but even when that's the case the job itself may not be "cushy". Besides, it's not exactly unknown for people to get themselves over-paid "cushy" jobs in the private sector as well. It's not necessary to use perjoratives to support the argument that this level of public sector employment is unsustainable.

[malcolm]

I am not trying to defend the Conservative party Tomtom.I am merely asking people with better brains than I (like your good self) how they expect those people who are financially dependant on government hand outs to be encouraged not to vote Labour.
As it is the intention of our party to reduce the size of the state this will obviously be difficult to achieve for the reasons Sean Fear indicated.
As you recently stated that you could do better than Cameron Tomtom perhaps you could tell us how.
Furthermore, I was not pretending anything as I made no comment at all about previous Conservative administrations good or bad and have no view as to whether we 'looked after our own' or not. I don't know much about Williams but the demise of Hanson had less to do with any government than the deaths of Hanson and White.

[Sally Rideout Baker]

We could have won the last General Election but for the Party being split by discontents and some still seeking power who had lost out in the first rounds. Many people like myself quit serving the party in disgust and some probably left for good. If IDS had support instead of back stabbing we could have won or at least had a far better result.
I am still waiting for the cabinet to have a good shake up. Cobwebs are growing over some.

[Annabel Herriott]

Re the huge amount of people on Welfare benefits, I read something the other day, about Hutton going to cut said benefits if people are still on them after so many years, and were perfectly fit. As this is Labour proposing this, good on them. They are concerned re immigrant workers filling all these vacancies that our unemplyed ought to be going after.
Wonder if it is ever put into practice???????

[jorgen]

Hatchet: It will take 2-3 Conservative terms of gradual change to properly reform the public services. And it will require much sensitivity and tact.

So, the Conservative Party expects to achieve this with the LibDems and after having given the voters the impression that relative poverty needs to be addressed and while lots of really poor people from the EU arrive in their 100,000s? Yeah, right!

[Peter Hatchet]

Jorgen, I really don't see the need for you to try and warp my comment to fit your own agenda to make yet another attack on the leadership.

My point was quite plain. In order to win an election we will need the votes of a good portion public sector workers and voters in Northern England, where we are particularly weak.

One of the reasons why we are so weak is our perceived hostility to the public sector and obsession with our own "cause célèbre".

Until we challenge this perception, and ensure we appeal to their interests too, we will stay in opposition.

Once the electorate have seen us in power for a few years - and are reassured of both our intentions and our competence - we can then start implementing some more deep-rooted reform.

In the meantime this may require us to focus on issues that you aren't interested in - and I'm sorry if this upsets you - but it is a necessary prerequisite to government.

[Peter Hatchet]

Jorgen, I really don't see the need for you to try and warp my comment to fit your own agenda to make yet another attack on the leadership.

My point was quite plain. In order to win an election we will need the votes of a good portion public sector workers and voters in Northern England, where we are particularly weak.

One of the reasons why we are so weak is our perceived hostility to the public sector and obsession with our own "cause célèbre".

Until we challenge this perception, and ensure we appeal to their interests too, we will stay in opposition.

Once the electorate have seen us in power for a few years - and are reassured of both our intentions and our competence - we can then start implementing some more deep-rooted reform. I believe this will also include tax reform/reduction and immigration reform and I see no evidence the shadow cabinet do not want to this in the long-term.

In the meantime this may require us to focus on issues that you aren't interested in - and I'm sorry if this upsets you - but it is a necessary prerequisite to government.

[Patsy Sergeant]

The only person on this thread to address the really important aspect of the whole subject, has still not gone far enough - and that is Annabel.

This benighted 'non-thinking through' government, and in particular Brown have announced that in order to reduce the enormous benefit pay-out, those who have been on benefits for a very long time for no visible reason, will shortly no longer receive benefits. How reassuring this SHOULD sound to the hard working tax-payer (which of course is exactly how Brown wants it to sound) BUT, as the government appears incapable or disinterested in trying to limit immigration in any way whether it is legitimate job-seekers of illegals, has anybody thought through WHO is going to have priority for jobs between idigineous job-seekers and immigrants. And has anybody thought of what will happen if the idigineous job-seekers in any numbers lose out in this equation. NO, of course they haven't!!!

[Tim Horton]

For many years I have held the belief that those employed in the public sector should lose their vote. Public sector personal are far from being unbiased as they claim. As pointed out above, they are unlikely to vote for any party that proposed cuts and more likely to vote for those that would spend more. Withdrawing the franchise from those that benefit directly from the public purse would enhance more open and honest government.

[ToMTom]

I don't know much about Williams but the demise of Hanson had less to do with any government than the deaths of Hanson and White.

Actually both were acquisitive conglomerates that needed the nod from the DTI each time they made an acquisition.......White and Hanson died long after they had broken up the group. You can always see which speculative groups make hay while the radiant sun of political friends shines.

The simple fact is that a dynamic economy with opportunity for all creates fewer obstructions to change than one run for the benefit of a few.

Kitzbuehl is a place for the rich but the influx of Russians now makes the locals propose a Russian quota so they aren't priced out. That is a case where the locals wish to preserve what they have for fear of being cast aside by people with more money.

That is something to be aware of when dealing with people in the public services. They have a vote like anyone else and being denigrated does not encourage them to favour change.

THe biggest increase in private sector jobs in the past decade has been in hairdressing. Hardly a well-paid job and with few prospects, but that is the largest single category of jobs created in ten years in the private sector.

Over 1 million manufacturing jobs have been destroyed and 800.000 public sector jobs created.

So don't think about reversing the 800.000 thousand public sector jobs without creating another 1 million manufacturing jobs

[Editor]

Thank you Simon (14:46) for that very thoughtful post.

[TomTom]

For many years I have held the belief that those employed in the public sector should lose their vote.

I hope your doctor changed your medication - hallucinogenics are very dangerous

[TomTom]

For many years I have held the belief that those employed in the public sector should lose their vote.

I hope your doctor changed your medication - hallucinogenics are very dangerous

[jorgen]

Peter Hatchet, DC is unlikely to win outright and I understood from the discussion Saturday that a coalition with the LibDems (and who else?) was a likely scenario.

[VS]

Valedictoryan is right that lots of people with children on average incomes don't pay that much net in income tax. But it _has always been thus_. In the 1950s, a married man with children needed to earn more than the average income in order to be a net taxpayer. It is only the inflation of the 70s and 80s that made most employees with children _net taxpayers_.

Interestingly, although this site seems to notice the fact that Child Tax Credit has made a lot of low-income people with kids better off - the Left itself hasn't noticed! Hence they criticise Brown from the left - thinking he is only helping the rich - and you guys criticise Brown from the right, thinking he is only aiding those on low incomes ;)

[malcolm]

Well that's brilliant Tomtom.All the Conservative party has to do is create a million private sector jobs whilst still in opposition then bingo we'll win the next election.I'm really glad I asked.

[Valedictoryan]

"and you guys criticise Brown from the right, thinking he is only aiding those on low incomes ;)"

No, I don't think he is aiding those on low incomes. I don't think he's aiding anyone. He has squandered a period of huge prosperity with nothing to show for it.

[matt wright]

Simon Chapman makes a sensible post. There is no way you can change this quickly without major problems for all concerned. Labour have been irresponsible but we have to adjust the system sensibly. Ranting on about useless public sector workers etc etc is guaranteed to send us into political oblivion,

Matt

[Cleo]

The public sector certainly has increased over the past 10 years, I work for a borough council. Since last May's local elections when a Lib Dem/Tory partnership administration was formed we are facing millions of pounds of cuts. There certainly is a lot of waste and lots in the public sector can be done more efficently but you have to be careful- my particular service is facing cuts and we are all about working with the voluntary sector and helping community groups to help themselves. But this is exactly the kind of work that can reduce dependence on the public sector for the long term.

[Sally Rideout Baker]

There are also the problems of some Public Sector workers having loads of sick leave and of couples pretending to live apart while the female partner gets Tax Credits.
Blair has wrecked the Democratic System.
One quarter gives and the other three quarters takes!
Getting rid of Labour will be akin to getting rid of Livingstone.

[matt wright]

Good post Cleo, I agree this is going to take time and DC is approaching it exactly the right way. Those that rant on about immediate tax cuts and useless public sector workers etc have not engaged their brains before opening their mouths. They also claim, in part correctly, that cutting taxes creates revenue but this takes time to work through. Just cutting taxes per se would mean in the short run sacking people. When Labour say who are you going to sack we had no coherent answer and we lost an election as a result,

Matt

[FreeSpeaker]

I suppose its got nothing to do with the fact most of the country would rather support Labour than the bunch of tossers that write for this website. Honestly, what a bunch of self-serving, pretentious, stuck up tossers that think they know what's best for the country. This site has gone right down the pan. Waste of space of space posts like this prove it. Get your nose out of your arses and into the real world!

[ToMTom]

Well that's brilliant Tomtom.All the Conservative party has to do is create a million private sector jobs whilst still in opposition then bingo we'll win the next election.I'm really glad I asked.

Posted by: malcolm | February 12, 2007 at 20:21

In Opposition you are useless Malcolm, totally useless as an Opposition even in the most basic things - that's why noone things of you as a Govt in waiting.

You cannot win any elections - you have proved that over ten years.

Why do you think you are consigned to Opposition ? Because noone trusts the Conservatives on the economy - they think of losing their jobs, homes, and being hit with VAT on gas and electricity. So that is why Labour is in power and from your comments looks set to stay there.

All Conservatives here sound to want is to push unemployment back to 3 million by cutting public sector jobs and simply resting there as in the 1980s. Your Conservative Party Malcolm is perceived as a group of Asset-Strippers out to plunder national assets for private gain; and little on this thread seems to discourage that view.

Unless there is a marked change of approach election defeat No4 is getting ready for launch on the slipway. It will be stunning to see how chronically incapable this party is of convincing voters of its competence, sincerity, or capability. To lack a commanding lead over Labour says it all.

[malcolm]

A bunch of straw men there Tomtom.For someone who has such a deep contempt for the Conservative party you spend an inordinate amount of time on this site.
I guess it's quite easy pouring contempt on our ideas but a little more difficult to come up with anything positive of your own wouldn't you say?