The winning side had a clear fiscal diagnosis, but not a blank cheque for cuts: seven in ten voters backed reducing public spending rather than raising taxes. The floor’s most-respected Yes case began, bluntly, “Our problem is a bloated state that does too much and spends too much.”
Yes voters argued that the state should first demonstrate discipline before asking for more money. Their strongest practical formulation was that government should ensure “existing public money is being spent effectively”, while another voice reduced the argument to “The books do not balance.” The case was as much about waste, contracts and administrative sprawl as about frontline services.
No voters did not deny that some savings might exist; they denied that cuts alone could carry the burden. The floor’s most-respected No case warned that “Public services are already in a truly dire state”, while another conceded, “There is absolutely spending that can be cut, but we can't expect to balance the budget with only cuts.” The two sides were often answering different questions: Yes asked who would pay for the present system, No asked what would happen to it if it were pared back.
That puts the result inside the live argument over tax rises, debt interest and the size of the state, but the debate’s more specific finding was about sequencing. Even several Yes voters drew a line between waste and provision, while the No side’s sharpest objection was historical: “A decade of Austerity did sod all to improve anything.”
The room was decisive on the direction of travel, less so on the cuts it would tolerate. Its mandate was for a smaller bill first, with the hard politics of deciding what survives still entirely unresolved.
27 Opinions
Our problem is a bloated state that does too much and spends too much. Taxes are already sky high, and probably can’t be raised any higher in a revenue positive way - many taxes are higher than their revenue maximising point on the laffer curve. Many opportunities exist to cut spending: - reuse the civil service to its pre Covid size - abolish foreign aid - abolish various quangos - cut welfare spending
There is a psychotic obsession in UK assuming everything can be solved by raising existing taxes & finding additional ways of fleecing us. Looking at those who lean left, there is never even a hint of self awareness that Public Sector is broken, bloated, corrupt, inefficient,over remunerated, lazy & wastes £Billions & cannot ever get Department accounts signed off because of waste & corruption. Why are the Permanent Secretaries not sacked & prosecuted - Directors would be.
The government is running out of people to tax and is spending more than it is earning, making the bond markets worried about our inability to pay back our debts.
When you are borrowing money to pay teh interest you owe on existing debt you are spending too much!
Public services are already in a truly dire state - anyone can look around their local area to see potholes, reduced bin collections, extortionate train fares, horrendous hospital waiting lists etc. etc. There just simply is no more to cut from public spending.
The books do not balance. The only two fundamental solutions are have more money coming in, or spend less. More money requires either growth (which isn't happening), or taxes. But taxation sources are drying up, and accentuate the decline. The only rational option is to reduce spend.
A decade of Austerity did sod all to improve anything.
Given that we rightly expect more from the state, especially health care, and that much of it is labour intensive, it is only to be expected that public spending will, and should, gradually rise in real terms. Austerity was a disaster. Taxation is a good thing. The trick is to make it sufficiently progressive.
The government should ensure existing public money is being spent effectively before asking taxpayers to contribute more. Demonstrating that waste has been reduced and money is being used efficiently would build public trust and make any necessary tax rises more credible and easier for the public to accept.
If 'spending cuts' means firing nurses and closing libraries, forget it. But if it means axing billions in corporate welfare, cancelling bloated private IT contracts, and booting parasitic management consultants out of Whitehall, then cut ruthlessly. The govt is haemorrhaging billions straight into the pockets of private outsourcing giants and PFI cartels while telling workers there's no money