Most of the public don't pay attention. They're more concerned with how their football team did or who won the dance off than getting their head around how government works.
Almost none of them vote in local elections, let alone joining or involving themselves in politics. They expect government ministers in charge of billions of budget to earn about the same as a senior manager of a fairly small manufacturing company. Oh, and that they shouldn't shag anyone on the side. Or criticise highly paid incompetent civil servants. And that government can fix all their problems, whether that is a pothole, the price of football shirts or that they get drunk and knocked up. Which mostly means that thick-skinned, unseripus people with zero management experience who don't actually care about what gets done get the job.
There is no solution to this beyond people growing up and demanding smaller government. None of the parties care about this, nor is there any significant political force demanding it (the libertarian party membership can fit into a fairly small pub).
I'm with you right up until the last paragraph. At this point you seem to conclude "these problems are hard to solve; therefore it is imperative not to even try", which is maddeningly defeatist. If everyone throughout history had taken that attitude, we'd still be living in caves.
You're most welcome to try and change it. I tried various angles and realised it was a waste of time.
Look at the pandemic. Public screaming for lockdown and now pissed off that they have to pay for it. It's like working for an idiot boss who tells you to do a thing then blames you when it goes titsup. There's no point in trying to work with these sort of people.
Most voters just want to hear that they're going to get richer or healthier. They do little scrutiny of it, put no effort into understanding economics so that they are capable of scrutinising promises. And it's not like the politicians are Dell or Sainsbury's, where you can relax and trust them. They're generally incompetent at the basics of running a department effectively.
Great stuff! Grown ups need to make choices but when they do they get ignored if they seem "problematic".
However we could also have a lot more for less if the money we spend was not wasted. There is reasonable fiscal evidence that the NHS treats about 30% less people than it could if it focussed on efficiency (Efficiency is NOT grinding frontline staff to dust with cost cutting)
That might be revolutionary and painful for many of our more senior staff in service providers. An added benefit IMHO.
It's weird. I want higher taxes and higher public spending; Chris (and probably most readers of this blog) want lower taxes and lower public spending. And yet, I believe we have more in common with each other than we do with the majority of the British electorate (or indeed the British parliament) who aren't coherent about what they want and will as a result get nothing.
Since pensioners didn't cause inflation, inflation hurts those on fixed incomes the most and harms savers far more than borrowers (guess which pensioners tend to be), saying its not "fair" they get a big increase in pensions because of inflation seems silly. The problem isn't the Triple Lock; it's that the Triple Lock as come into play in a big way because of the stupidity of government.
As for the linkage between good public services and high public spending...the point is, the public has been told, time and again, that we can only have good public services if we spend a lot more. But of course as every successful private business shows, this is simply untrue.
The Bank of England caused inflation by printing £400 bn to lend to the government so they could shut the economy down in order to protect... pensioners. It seems to me obviously unfair to constantly give pensioners a better deal than everyone else: the private sector, the public sector and people on other benefits. Index-linking would be quite sufficient.
Most of the public don't pay attention. They're more concerned with how their football team did or who won the dance off than getting their head around how government works.
Almost none of them vote in local elections, let alone joining or involving themselves in politics. They expect government ministers in charge of billions of budget to earn about the same as a senior manager of a fairly small manufacturing company. Oh, and that they shouldn't shag anyone on the side. Or criticise highly paid incompetent civil servants. And that government can fix all their problems, whether that is a pothole, the price of football shirts or that they get drunk and knocked up. Which mostly means that thick-skinned, unseripus people with zero management experience who don't actually care about what gets done get the job.
There is no solution to this beyond people growing up and demanding smaller government. None of the parties care about this, nor is there any significant political force demanding it (the libertarian party membership can fit into a fairly small pub).
I'm with you right up until the last paragraph. At this point you seem to conclude "these problems are hard to solve; therefore it is imperative not to even try", which is maddeningly defeatist. If everyone throughout history had taken that attitude, we'd still be living in caves.
You're most welcome to try and change it. I tried various angles and realised it was a waste of time.
Look at the pandemic. Public screaming for lockdown and now pissed off that they have to pay for it. It's like working for an idiot boss who tells you to do a thing then blames you when it goes titsup. There's no point in trying to work with these sort of people.
Most voters just want to hear that they're going to get richer or healthier. They do little scrutiny of it, put no effort into understanding economics so that they are capable of scrutinising promises. And it's not like the politicians are Dell or Sainsbury's, where you can relax and trust them. They're generally incompetent at the basics of running a department effectively.
Great stuff! Grown ups need to make choices but when they do they get ignored if they seem "problematic".
However we could also have a lot more for less if the money we spend was not wasted. There is reasonable fiscal evidence that the NHS treats about 30% less people than it could if it focussed on efficiency (Efficiency is NOT grinding frontline staff to dust with cost cutting)
That might be revolutionary and painful for many of our more senior staff in service providers. An added benefit IMHO.
It's weird. I want higher taxes and higher public spending; Chris (and probably most readers of this blog) want lower taxes and lower public spending. And yet, I believe we have more in common with each other than we do with the majority of the British electorate (or indeed the British parliament) who aren't coherent about what they want and will as a result get nothing.
Since pensioners didn't cause inflation, inflation hurts those on fixed incomes the most and harms savers far more than borrowers (guess which pensioners tend to be), saying its not "fair" they get a big increase in pensions because of inflation seems silly. The problem isn't the Triple Lock; it's that the Triple Lock as come into play in a big way because of the stupidity of government.
As for the linkage between good public services and high public spending...the point is, the public has been told, time and again, that we can only have good public services if we spend a lot more. But of course as every successful private business shows, this is simply untrue.
The Bank of England caused inflation by printing £400 bn to lend to the government so they could shut the economy down in order to protect... pensioners. It seems to me obviously unfair to constantly give pensioners a better deal than everyone else: the private sector, the public sector and people on other benefits. Index-linking would be quite sufficient.
An excellent case for hating the mindset of most of the population, including, one of my own grandmothers.
Brilliant stuff.