When we need politicians

Mark Easton | 13:58 UK time, Friday, 3 July 2009

Government borrowing is now at record levels and cannot be sustained. What would you do? Raise taxes? Cut spending? Leave things as they are and hope for a miracle?

I have been sent previously unpublished polling data on what voters think. And the answer is... totally inconclusive. It is pretty much a three-way split with no hint of consensus.

If there is a conclusion to be drawn from this chart, it is that we cannot rely on public opinion to guide us through the financial mess. It is for exactly this kind of situation that we elect and pay our politicians: to take the difficult decisions on our behalf, to use their talents and vision so that Britain comes out on the other side as undamaged as is possible

To dismiss them all as power-hungry, money-grabbing crooks at this time really isn't helpful.

The Ipsos Mori poll does offer some clues as to what the public think the government's priorities should be.

And which TWO or THREE, if any, of the following main areas of public spending do you think should be cut to restore public finances? The NHS/health care: 2%; Schools: 3%; The Police: 8%; Defence: 27%; Local authority services: 21%; Benefit payments: 44%; Social services: 13%; Care for the elderly: 1%; Overseas aid: 56%; Don't know: 2%

Of those who think that some services should be protected, two candidates emerge as serious candidates for the axe - and both of them hit the poor.

Just as hundreds of thousands of people find themselves joining the dole queue, a substantial minority of the country thinks government should cut benefit payments. And just as the global recession risks consigning millions of the world's most vulnerable to total poverty, a slightly larger group think that it is the time to pull the plug on overseas aid.

It is obvious, perhaps. If cuts have to happen, voters want them to happen to others. Self-interest rules the day. Once again, it might be argued, we need smart, professional policy-makers to consider the short, medium and long-term implications of any spending changes.

The question of where to cut is a lot easier if you believe there is substantial inefficiency in the delivery of public services. On this analysis, it is possible to reduce budgets without hitting services.

Please tell me how strongly you agree or disagree with each of<br />
these arguments about public services and public spending: There is a real need to cut spending on public services in order to pay off the very high national debt we now have; Making public services more efficient can save enough money to help cut government spending, without damaging services the public receive

The Ipsos Mori poll finds a substantial majority of people (79%) think there is so much waste in the system that, if we could only root it out, cuts to real services would be unnecessary. Hallelujah! We are saved.

Please tell me how strongly you agree or disagree with each of<br />
these arguments about public services and public spending: Public services are already run<br />
efficiently, and so the only way to cut spending is to cut services provided to the public; There are many public services that are a waste of money and can be cut

This running-the-country business is much easier when you don't have to take the risks yourself, don't have to deal with the consequences and don't have to justify your mistakes. I wonder which current services voters regard as a waste of money. Where is the multi-trillion pounds' worth of profligacy and inefficiency hidden? Let me know, and I will post a memo to ministers with the top ideas. Right now, we need all the expertise we can muster.