Two-thirds of voters believe that taxes could be cut without harming vital services

Tomorrow sees the publication of the TaxPayers' Alliance's annual landscape survey of public opinion in the run up to the party conference season.

Most newspapers will probably focus on the finding that 40% of voters have given serious thought to moving abroad or are actually planning to do so.

For ConservativeHome, however, it is the finding on cutting the tax burden whilst protecting public services that is most interesting.  66% agreed that the nation "could lower taxes without having to cut spending on vital services... if Britain reformed public services and cut waste".  That number is up from 54% in January 2007 when ICM polled on the issue.  The 'if' in that question is, of course, a big 'if'.  Voters may be sceptical about any political party's ability to cut waste.  There is, however, a very strong belief among voters that there is enormous waste in Britain's public sector:

• Nearly five times as many voters think that they get poor or bad value for money from local government as think they get good or excellent value for money.  The ratio is 7 to 1 when it comes to value for money from central government.
• 53% think that more than £20 of every £100 that government spends is wasted.
• 65% believe that the extra money spent by government on public services since 1997 has generally been spent badly.
• When it comes to explaining why spending is wasteful... 66% say constant changes, reorganisation and rebranding; 62% blame bureaucracy and 60% identify money being spent on the wrong projects.

Here are some other key findings from their YouGov survey:

• The cost of utility bills is the number one financial worry for British families.  65% identify their electricity etc bills as a "major financial worry".  Rising council tax is the second big worry (61%). House price affordability is a major worry for 51% of families.
• 70% of voters say that they are paying more tax than 1997.  79% expect taxes to be higher still in three years.
• The council tax is the most unfair tax according to the 2,162 people surveyed by YouGov.  Then comes the BBC licence fee, then inheritance tax and then fuel duty.  Working class voters are least happy with the BBC's poll tax.  67% think it unfair.
• A cut in council tax was something that 68% of respondents would like to see.  The third favoured cut option was excluding the main home from inheritance tax.  63% liked the idea of that.  Conservative members recently identified a reduction in inheritance tax  as their favourite tax relief option.
• 44% of respondents would like the party they support to pledge a reduction in taxes.  38% recommend holding taxes steady.  6% want their party to increase taxes.  This suggests that a US-style Tax Pledge, where candidates promise not to vote for any package that increases the overall tax burden, would command majority support.
  
• 26% would use a £1,000 tax cut to pay off debt.  28% would invest it in a pension or general savings.
• 69% of voters believe that it's a good idea when people from outside Parliament are appointed to ministerial or shadow ministerial posts by Gordon Brown and David Cameron.  63% of respondents agreed that "few if any senior politicians have the necessary experience, competence and knowledge to run public services".

Comments

[John Coles]

There is so much here that a half-competent Shadow Chancellor could build on: however, commitment to value for tax collected, reducing wasted taxation, radical tax reform and, indeed, reducing the tax burden simply will not be contemplated by Mr Osborne. Instead we are promised a continuation of the exisiting socialist taxation programme for years and then, if we're lucky, a "sharing of the proceeds of future growth" (what a dismal mantra) when it comes to tax reductions.
His unenthusiastic, muted reaction to John Redwood's report was deeply disappointing. Notwithstanding his youth, the man's thinking shows all the rigidity one might expect from gin-soaked 70 year old - to use a good old Thatcherism, when it comes to contemplating tax changes, Mr Osborne is "frit". By contrast, the British public is ready for tax reform, as this TPA survey shows.

[Votedave]

"Two-thirds of voters believe that taxes could be cut without harming vital services"

If only voters had thought the same at the last two general elections, instead of falling for this "Tory sums don't add up" milarkey.

[greg]

"Two-thirds of voters believe that taxes could be cut without harming vital services"

Well that's a surprisingly low figure since I'm sure 100% of people could name some Govt spending that they don't personally feel is necessary. Govt doesn't only spend money on "vital services".

[David Sergeant]

"Two-thirds of voters believe that taxes could be cut without harming vital services"

I suspect this relates to how the question was put. For the last 15 years voters have made their view utterly clear that tax cuts mean public service cuts.

[Graeme Archer, toying with flip-flops tonight as a more authentically Tory form of sandal.]

I think an amazing statistic here is that so many people are fearful of their utility bill. This sort of takes things from the theoretical to the practical somewhat, no? It must be a sign that Brownian economics has pushed a lot more people much closer to the edge than the "headline" statistics (no. of repossessions, overall tax burden etc) show. Leccy bill is nowhere near the largest amount of tax most people pay - but you have to write the cheque for it yourself - and that it is such a burden to so many suggests that the overall tax burden is way way too high, for the necessary but order-of-magnitude-less-than-council-or-income-tax utility bill to worry them. Do you see what I mean? I'm not saying electricity bills are so low, what are these people on about? I'm saying that for so many people to be worried by them, there must be some sort of "last straw" type thing going on.

[david]

Hmmm People don't like paying taxes, well whatever next!!!

[Radical Tory]

Good to see but will Cameron and Osborne take notice? No - they are too stubborn and don't feel the effects many are experiencing due to high tax.

Cameron has let Labour set the agenda and submitted to the 'high tax is right' view. This shows Cameron isn't up to the job. Why dosen't he set the agenda? Why not use tax cuts to appeal to some of the strivers in the UK - those on the min wage. The idea that they should hand over some of their money in tax is grotesque.

When Cameron loses the next election we must remember that his refusal to give value for money to the British people has played a big part in his defeat (despite having so many advantages).

[malcolm]

Change the record Radical Tory it's getting very dull. Do you honestly believe that taxes under a Conservative government will not be lower than under Labour or Lib Dem?

[Radical Tory]

Why should I believe taxes under Cameron would be lower than under Labour? Cameron has not committed himself to tax cuts, has said he will match Labour's spending and has a tendency to follow Labour in many things. Furthermore I'm not prepared to support Cameron on the basis that I have a 'feeling' that he will cut tax. I don't 'do' politics based on feelings, I base it on facts.

He hasn't even delivered on his pledge to leave EPP despite being leader for 2 years!

I'll change my record when Cameron changes his.

[Mr Angry]

Radical Tory is basing his/her view on the facts and evidence to date, Malcolm is basing his on his "feeling" and what he hopes is the case. I know which one looks the more likely to be accurate from here.

[Opinicus]

So where does Hilton get his ideas from..?

What's the point of using focus groups, if you don't understand what they're saying?

[Richard]

Fact is that a lot of voters pay increased taxes and don't see any concrete returns because the money is sent to Labour heartlands. The redistribution of wealth crowd (Toynbee etc) believe that this is acceptable but that the government should be more honest with voters about this. Personally I think we should tell the bunch of meddling do-gooders to stop telling us how we can spend our money.

[Yet Another Anon]

The cost of utility bills is the number one financial worry for British families.
Cheaper utility bills means more power use which makes it more difficult to meet targets for holding down energy use and reducing emissions of Greenhouse gases, the point should be to encourage more efficient energy use and generate more money for building new nuclear power stations, developing renewables and improving capacity.

As for essential services I think that there have to be distinctions between essential and merely desirable services - ie Police, Fire (the NHS is not an essential service nor beyond minimal benefits for the severely disabled is Welfare and nor is Education), Water, Sewerage, Transportation, Defence, National Security and Communications. Education and Welfare, and an accident & emergency service are desirable services not essential ones. If it is just a matter of Essential Services then I am sure taxation and spending could be cut to a quarter of what it is now; if you add in desirable services I am sure it could be reduced quickly below 40% of GDP and maybe later towards 20% of GDP, it's a matter of politics.

[greg]

"Why should I believe taxes under Cameron would be lower than under Labour? Cameron has not committed himself to tax cuts, has said he will match Labour's spending and has a tendency to follow Labour in many things. Furthermore I'm not prepared to support Cameron on the basis that I have a 'feeling' that he will cut tax."

Why should I believe public spending under Blair/Brown would be higher than under the Tories? Blair/Brown has not committed himself to public spending rises, has said he will match the Conservatives' spending and has a tendency to follow the Conservatives in many things. Furthermore I'm not prepared to support Blair on the basis that I have a 'feeling' that he will raise public spending.

[TomTom]

There is so much here that a half-competent Shadow Chancellor could build on: however, commitment to value for tax collected, reducing wasted taxation

That would be true if political parties were organs of public opinion but they are not. They are presentational vehicles for narrow cliques that use them to advance their own interests....we live in an Administrative Democracy where voters are conditioned into variations on a basic theme determined by the Administrative Machine which has deemed Environment & New Taxation as the theme to cover the need for more money for more administration.

Too many people still live in the ancien regime with notions of political parties being there to represent voters; they do not, they represent the Administrative Machine to the voters

[malcolm]

I would suggest that 'sharing the proceeds of growth' is an absolute commitment to spend less than Labour. As regards the EPP I too wish that we had left already but no MEP will be able to fight the next Euro election under the EPP which again is an absolute commitment. Radical Tory and Mr Angry may prefer to lose the next election and spend the next 5 years being ruled by Nulanbour ,I do not.
On topic I notice that the BBC do not report the TPA survey at all (ITN fortunately has)or indeed the criticisms of Brown levelled by Gen. Jackson. When are the Conservative party going to strart criticising BBC bias in public?

[Radical Tory]

Greg - I'm not sure what your point is. I agree Labour won't give tax cuts, I never claimed they would. But I have never considered voting Labour and never will. I have voted Conservative in the past (in fact I’ve been a council candidate and ward chairman). Just because Labour aren’t offering tax cuts does not mean that I should support the Conservatives who are also not offering tax cuts.

Malcolm - why is sharing the proceeds of growth an absolute commitment to tax cuts? If it was why not say 'we'll cut taxes'? Do you know something the rest of us don't? I thought Cameron also said we'll put economic stability before tax cuts. So which is it? Will he share the proceeds of growth by cutting tax? If so by how much? After all he must be prepared. Or will he only cut taxes if the right conditions are there? If so what are they? What does he define as stability? Cameron is vague and confused. How can you believe anything so vague?

On the EPP - the point remains he gave a concrete pledge we would leave. Two years in we are still in. We would not be happy with Blair if he promised something in 1997 but delivered it in 2005. Equally why should we be happy with Cameron?

[CCTV]

Radical Tory and Mr Angry may prefer to lose the next election and spend the next 5 years being ruled by Nulanbour ,I do not.

Whether they "prefer" it or not is irrelevant.....what they "prefer" has no bearing on matters since they have two votes only.

Or do you think it is wishful thinking that will change facts.....you should watch Leni Riefenstahl's film triumph of The Will

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

"Change the record Radical Tory it's getting very dull. Do you honestly believe that taxes under a Conservative government will not be lower than under Labour or Lib Dem?"

It seems that Malcolm is now calling Osborne a liar - and that he's really going to lower taxes, despite stating to the contrary.

Amazing as it may seem, Malcolm, statist trendie-lefties, like Osborne and Cameron, are not actually concerned with giving tax cuts to the working masses - they're only interested power and they'll do and say anything to get it.

Once in power, do you honestly think that Cameron is going to be the remotest bit interested in the well-being of the over-taxed majority ? The answer is 'No'. He'll only be interested in placating the noisy cries of the welfare class and victim groups.

[James Maskell]

Given these findings (which are very obvious to any true conservative), will Cameron reconsider the Forsyth Tax Reform Commissions findings?

[John Coles]

Stephen Tolkinghome wrote:
""......statist trendie-lefties, like Osborne and Cameron, are not actually concerned with giving tax cuts to the working masses - they're only interested power and they'll do and say anything to get it.""
How true - that is the very nub of the problem.

[malcolm]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN BY THE EDITOR.

[Radical Tory]

Macolm - please don't make personal attacks on Stephen. Let's focus on the issues. I know Cameroons have a tendency to get ratty when people don't agree with them fully but please leave the insults out.

These are the parts of the 'sharing the proceeds of growth' I don't get (to repeat my past post): Why is sharing the proceeds of growth an absolute commitment to tax cuts? If it was why not say 'we'll cut taxes'? Do you know something the rest of us don't? I thought Cameron also said we'll put economic stability before tax cuts. So which is it? Will he share the proceeds of growth by cutting tax? If so by how much? After all he must be prepared. Or will he only cut taxes if the right conditions are there? If so what are they? What does he define as stability?

Cameron is vague and confused. How can you believe anything so vague?

[TomTom]

"Proceeds of Growth" ? What BS is that ?

This economy is INFLATING not growing...house prices are increasing the GDP as are City bonuses.

The problem is that both of these are causing huge liabilities ans as the banking disaster of CDOs hidden away in SIVs become clearer and banks have to shrink their asset base we shall see how much of the "growth" of the past few years has been an illusion based upon fake assets

It will be interesting to see how many bailouts are needed to rescue banks and other institutions when the hedge funds go belly up

[Traditional Tory]

It seems that no real reform of Stamp Duty is envisaged, yet this tax has a severely distorting effect on the housing market.

The £250,000 break point from 2% to 3% tax is iniquitous and absurd. It means that if you ahve a house worth £260,000 or £270,000 you can probably still only get £250,000 for it. This peculiarity needs to be addressed.

At the very least a fairly graduated system should be introduced.

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

It's the vagueness of Cameron that is really the most infuriating thing about him. He can give a speech lasting an hour, or more, but without ever actually saying anything coherent or definite.

In a way it's a strategy that he employs to allow those of all political persuasions to interpret his speeches but by seeming that he's a 'nice guy', they'll interpret them in a way which suits their political thinking (or unthinking, in many instances) and which makes them think he's actually speaking for them.

Problem is that Bliar did this for ten years, and we see where we are with that. It's just the same on taxation - and too many Tories try to read into his speeches positive signals for tax cuts. The truth is that there will not be any, just business as usual for the Government - which has been in power since 1990.