Support for higher public spending rises after Osborne's cuts
The number who want higher spending, even with higher taxes, has risen for the first time in nine years.
By George Eaton Published 17 September 2012 8:22
The majority of George Osborne's cuts are still to come but support for higher public spending, even if it means higher taxes, has already increased. Last year, according to the 2012 British Social Attitudes report, thirty six per cent of people said they wanted to see the government "increase taxes and spend more on health, education and social benefits", up from 31% in 2010 and the first increase for nearly a decade (see graph below). The majority (55%) said they would like to see spending levels remain the same, while just six per cent favoured lower taxes and lower spending.
Since around 88% of the coalition's cuts have yet to be made, this is likely to be the beginning of a shift back towards support for a larger state. In 1991, for instance, after the Thatcher government's comparatively minor cuts, 65 per cent said they wanted to see taxes and spending rise but this figure fell in response to Labour's spending increases.

Public support for higher spending rose from 31% in 2010 to 36% last year.
With some Conservatives arguing that the ring-fence on NHS spending should be removed, it's also worth noting that 68 per cent chose health as their first or second priority for extra government spending, with education in second place on 61 per cent, followed by police and prisons (15 per cent) and housing (14 per cent). Expect Tory MPs, angered by the coalition's decision to increase spending on international development by 35 per cent, to highlight the fact that overseas aid finished bottom, with just one per cent citing it as a spending priority. By contrast, 10 per cent favoured higher spending on defence, the one budget many Conservatives would like to see protected.
The right will also draw comfort from clear support for a more restrictive welfare system. During the early-1990s recession, 58 per cent wanted to see more spending on welfare benefits but now just 28 per cent do. Only 59 per cent agree that the government should be the main provider of support to the unemployed, down from 88 per cent a decade ago. Support for spending more on the disabled, traditionally viewed as the most deserving group, has also declined, although given the media's demonisation of welfare receipients this is perhaps unsurprising. Since 2008, the proportion saying that spending on disabled benefits should be increased has declined significantly from 63 per cent to 53 per cent. As the report notes, "This trend is not just a cyclical response to the ups and downs of economic activity; it suggests a fundamental long-term change in attitudes towards welfare and benefit recipients."
On immigration, while 51 per cent would like to see levels reduced "a lot" (up from 39 per cent in 1995) and a further 24 per cent would like to see levels reduced "a little", there is strong support for skilled migration. In total, 63 per cent say that skilled migration from eastern Europe is "good" or "very good" for Britain, while 61 per cent say the same about skilled migration "from Muslim countries like Pakistan".
Ed Miliband has been criticised by some on the left for responding to public concern about welfare and immigration but these findings suggest he is right to argue that Labour cannot be seen to accept the status quo. In the case of welfare, that means support for a more contributory system, and in the case of immigration, that means tighter regulation of the labour market to ensure that bosses cannot use foreign workers to undercut domestic wages.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















16 comments
yeah and furthermore - economic policy.
This discreditted neo-liberal nonsense need to reversed. How come we can print 375 billion to buy boonds so that the banks are able to lend more?.
Bunkum- if a fraction (eg, 10 billion)of that money had been spent on infrastructure or social housing we would not be in a recession. But we are unable to because the finacial laws are there for the investors. We will never dig our way out of this mess until there is a realisation that this is a demaand led recession.
Show me country where austerity is working. Economic death spirals every ome of them. Greece, spain, Italy and Ireland. And now the UK.
We need to unravel the fatalistic messages about a more progressive tax system. we could start by trying to learn from history. i am unaware of any state saving their way out of the great recession. i think we embarked on the greatest workfare program ever - WW2.
Then we invented the welfare state where we buit social housing created the NHS and benefits ect.All this whilst our debt was three times higher than it is now. What folloowed was a period of unparalled growth. At the same time top tax rates were around 90% because they needed to be.
Since Thatcher the rich have got richer but they increasingly tell us that should pay less and less tax. If we run a deficit- put taxes up to pay for it. There is an abundance of wealth in the UK.
Wrong way to put the question. It is far more complicated than that.
What's important in this debate is WHO will be doing the paying and HOW it is to be done.
Should "the rich" be taxed more heavily? Should everyone be? Should more debt be issued ("money-printing")?
We live in a society in which the majority are consumers, spenders and net gainers from the tax system, in terms of the cost of the services provided to them. They vastly outnumber the wealth producers, savers, speculator risk-takers and investors, even people with positive net worth.
Yet this is a "democracy", which means that the 'takers' can always outvote the 'providers'. "MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING" is a certain bet for the future, as is "tax the rich".
And this legalized theft-via-taxation at the point of the government gun is going to become even more popular as the economic crisis deepens in the next few years
I think the questions asked were far too simplistic....
Tory cuts vs Labour investment? Haven't we heard, been inflicted , with this tired old dogma before the election? Didn't win Labour too many votes, result was the coalition.
It is a well known fact that pollsters asking about attitudes to higher tax rates to improve services generally get answered with yes. When a government inflicts said higher taxes, taxpayers whinge.
In the real world Turkeys don't vote for Christmas....
What cuts are these then? Do you believe in political fairy tales?
The coalition started from a public debt/GDP ratio of around 60%. It is now 72% and expected to rise to 90% by 2019-20 according to CEBR forecasts.
Perhaps learn the difference between deficit and total debt. Also , they've arsed up their attempts to deal with the deficit by plunging the economy in recession with an unbalanced policy approach.
You explained my point far more concisely than I managed!
Public spending and the public debt/GDP ratio are not the same thing! The government spent 1.6% less overall in 2011-12 than the previous year: 2.3% less on health, 2.6% less on education, and 21.4% less on housing, for example. The one area which stands out is spending on Social Protection , which has risen by 2% due to higher unemployment. But overall, government spending is lower in real terms than a year ago.
The reason that debt is not falling is that tax receipts are 0.8% lower too. Less money going out, but less money coming in too. Also, don't forget that GDP is 0.3% lower than when the coalition came to power.
The crucial distinction is that public spending measures the services we get from government, while changes to the debt/GDP ratio indicate how affordable this is. Under Osborne, we're getting a lower level of public services but are less well placed to afford them.
George, what Labour has been criticised for in its response to the welfare issue is its tacit endorsement, if not at times explicit perpetuation, of the scrounger rhetoric - of which Liam Byrne is particularly guilty.
What percentage of benefit claimants would you say are scroungers? Bear in mind that the largest part of DWP spending goes on the state pension.
Maybe people have begun to realise that this Tory Led Coalition of Evil will leave the good people of this country with nothing and only the rich will be secure !
This Tory Led Coalition is slaughtering the NHS, slaughtering the lower classes/poorest, taking away legal aid for recourse to justice, trying to take away humanm rights and the list goes on and on and on.
When you look into what this government is doing, in it's entirety you will realise that they will leave 90% of people in this country like slaves with no where to turn with out a voice and no where to turn.
Spending more money on infrastructure rather than benefits, wages and services is something that Labour now supports too, as Balls has stated jobs come before pay not the other way round, all extra money should be invested in state spending on infrastructure which will generate jobs.
there's lots of stuff we need to spend money on such as energy generation (that will replace north sea oil when it runs out) like tidal technology in river severn, we need a national trunk that will integrate, high speed rail with super fast broadband, newer sewage systems, national flood defences and a global hub airport (just a few things to start with). all this costs money and lots of it.
Depends on what form the extra spending takes. Spending on wages, benefits and services won't help us. Spending on infrastructure spending and education will help our competitiveness, long term growth and may just benefit future generations. Live for today culture is history.
Why the suicidal behaviour? Maybe people have been duped into thinking that the state is the fount of all wealth. Also, they could be saying: "I'm uncertain about the future and want the state to help me."
'Suicidal behaviour'? Actually, it was the state that had to step in when the banking sector was on the point of dying from self-inflicted injuries, and was about to bring down the world's economic system with it. If various states had not intervened, the entire financial system would collapsed catastrophically - so actually, it could indeed be argued that the state is the fount of all wealth.
the state can help make the country more competitive, such as investment in infrastructure and education. it can also make the country less competitive when govt debt exceeds certain thresholds (90% of GDP or greater) and when structural deficits hinder the economy through excessive resources funnelled into current spending on benefits and wages rather than investment.
the govt can also help the private sector make the right choices that will benefit the economy however there are always problems of unintended consequences, for example gordon brown wanted to encourage investment in UK films however it became a tax avoidance scheme and then there are simply wrong choices for example in the last decade private debt was treated favourably and therefore made worse a bad situation. flatter taxes where the taxes are very broad yet very simple would prevent avoidance, be more transparent and make the economy more efficient where more effort is spent improving businesses rather than working out how to avoid taxes and less money spenbt collecting taxes and on accountants.